REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*cough*evolutionist's panspermia theory*cough*

*cough* evolutionist's "hopeful monster" theory *cough*

Neither one of those is Evolution theory, my dear.

It makes more sense that it would be "Intelligent Design" theory, rather.

No serious evolution book teaches any of those fairy tales, not "hopeful monster", "panspermia", nor "Intelligent Design".

EDIT: get your butt back on topic, Rian! This is about Religion, not fairy tales of Creationism.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Neither one of those is Evolution theory, my dear.

Excuse me - I beg to differ ... they are certainly among the various explanations offered by evolutionists, and are held with varying degrees of popularity over time by some highly regarded scientists.

It makes more sense that it would be "Intelligent Design" theory, rather.

Yes, it does, but they aren't. But ideas having no sense has never stopped evolutionists ....

EDIT: get your butt back on topic, Rian! This is about Religion, not fairy tales of Creationism.

Please do not single out MY tushie, O Elf of Little Self Control Gray Mouser started it by "coughing" first - I had said I was stopping - neener neener!

[Janny]

Eeb, that was my dumb question I think which caused that!
This is kinda going down the same route as the 'Questions for Biology' thread...
Again I ask, why does religion (or at least philosophy) and science have so many squabbles? Aren't they essentially searching for the same thing?

Also, an abstract question: what do you think of the philosophic questions posed by the film the Matrix?

[Nurvingiel]

Creationism has its own thread... for a reason too it seems - quite the debate on the subject.

It's eeeeeeearly on Monday morning Rian, I'll come by later for that promised post.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Janny
Eeb, that was my dumb question I think which caused that!

Nah, Ruinel just wanted to blow up at me, she hasn't done it for awhile! *gives Ru a big kiss*

Again I ask, why does religion (or at least philosophy) and science have so many squabbles? Aren't they essentially searching for the same thing?

Yes, but the answers they come up with are different ... and often incompatible ... and often uncomfortable ...

Also, an abstract question: what do you think of the philosophic questions posed by the film the Matrix?

Not having seen it, I won't comment, except to say from what I've heard it's kind of a mish-mash of religious POVs.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Janny
Eeb, that was my dumb question I think which caused that!
This is kinda going down the same route as the 'Questions for Biology' thread...
Again I ask, why does religion (or at least philosophy) and science have so many squabbles? Aren't they essentially searching for the same thing?

Also, an abstract question: what do you think of the philosophic questions posed by the film the Matrix?

No, they are not searching for the same thing, my dear Janny. Science searches for truth and an understanding of the world around us through experimentation, direct evidence and indirect evidence.

Religion searches for an explanation of a world they do not understand through myth and stories, void of evidence, but based on faith alone.

Religion and Science clash when the truth and evidence counter religious myth and create doubt in faith.

[edit]Also, what "philosophic question posed by the film the Matrix"?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Nah, Ruinel just wanted to blow up at me, she hasn't done it for awhile! *gives Ru a big kiss*

Bah! I wasn't blowing up at you. I just grabbed the last person I saw posting off topic junk and set them straight, that's all. *gives Rian a hug*

And I'd like a list of those "highly regarded scientists" you were talking about.

[Rían]

OK, I have a bit of time, I'll start posting my thoughts on your post, Nurvi. But I warn you that it's a complex topic, IMO, and it will not be a quick discussion!

I was definitely hoping Christianity didn't have this take on it. My own personal version of Chistianity, aka, my worldview (I like that term, thanks RÃ*an) feels that you're not going to hell. Because, I don't really believe in hell, or the Devil. That doesn't mean you're allowed to go out and sin now though! *glares*

Hmm, your 4th sentence shows that you see at least some sort of relationship with the idea of no Hell and the natural and logical inference that therefore, sin wouldn't matter... and I'd say you're right.

Now since that sentence had too many negatives and it was too confusing, let me restate it.

I find it interesting and illuminating that when you assume that there is no Hell (because you don't like how it feels, I think) that you immediately and logically see an inference that you don't like at all - namely, that sin wouldn't matter. And in your mind and heart you KNOW that sin DOES matter. I think this is something to think about ... perhaps you are wrong about there being no Hell.

I certainly imagine that you would agree that "feeling" or "believing" something doesn't make a difference as to whether or not it's actually true, altho I think it can be an indicator to the truth.

See, IMO, the whole issue starts with the question "Is there a God?" And for THAT particular question, there IS a yes/no answer; there DOES exist an absolute truth about it. You can quibble about definitions of God, but it doesn't matter - the question is of a type that HAS a yes/no answer - altho at this point in time, we humans cannot prove it "scientifically" in a lab. But that should NOT stop us from attempting to answer it. There are LOTS of worthwhile questions that cannot be answered in a lab, and it is the BETTER thing, IMO, to attempt to answer them, even tho you may be wrong.

When I first met my husband, I liked him right off - lovely dark hair, tall, very courteous and very masculine. We met at a Bible study - then didn't see each other for several months! (we were both going on business trips a lot). I next saw him at the 4th of July party - our group went 4-wheeling on some property the church owned and was going to build on. I thought that perhaps he liked me, too. Did I run to the store and purchase some scales and scientifically measure his heart to try to answer my question? No. The question is not scientifically answerable.

But it IS a suitable question to make inferences from, which I did at the end of the 4-wheeling time. Everyone was headed over to someone's house for food and swimming, and he needed a ride (the people he came with had to go early). Some girls kept telling him "Come with us! Come with us" (I wanted to kick them! ) But I assumed that IF he liked me, then he would choose to go with ME to the party, so I smiled at him and said "I have room in my car, you can come with me if you'd like to!" and started walking to my car. When I got there - there he was and the rest, as they say, is history! (Of course the case could have been that he liked me and was too shy to take up that hint, but if he was that kind of guy, I didn't WANT to go out with him. I gave him PLENTY of encouragement - quite a nice smile! - and if he wasn't decisive enough to follow up on it, then he wasn't the kind of guy I like, anyway.)

Anyway, all that to say that I think we can really analyze and discuss these issues in a profitable way, even tho they are NOT proveable in a scientific sense. And one of the best ways to consider these questions, IMO, is to:

• 1. assume they are true, then
  2. make valid logical inferences from them, then
  3. see if the inferences are true.

Do you see what I mean? Do you agree?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Religion searches for an explanation of a world they do not understand through myth and stories, void of evidence, but based on faith alone.

I totally disagree with your opinion - mine is different - but I"ll be covering that in a bit *tweeks Ruinel's lovely elven ears*

And I'm too lazy to dig up the scientists' names, but if you go to TalkOrigins (the evolutionists' "scriptures" ) and search, you'll find them

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
Again I ask, why does religion (or at least philosophy) and science have so many squabbles? Aren't they essentially searching for the same thing?

I dont know that religion is "searching" at all. Well I guess it depends what religion you speak of. Ive always thought of it as more of a way of living then trying to learn anything (other than maybe about yourself). And the same would be true about the conflict between religion and science. As far as science is concerned reigion is irrelevant so theres no real conflict. But some religions are threatened by science on certain levels and therefore theres a big fuss when the followers of these religions attempt to wrestle certain concepts away from science and toward religion.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, I have a bit of time, I'll start posting my thoughts on your post, Nurvi. But I warn you that it's a complex topic, IMO, and it will not be a quick discussion!

Yea you responded! I don't want a quick discussion, where's the fun in that? I agree, a complex topic such as this needs to be looked at thouroughly.

Hmm, your 4th sentence shows that you see at least some sort of relationship with the idea of no Hell and the natural and logical inference that therefore, sin wouldn't matter... and I'd say you're right.

Your response got me thinking on that. Maybe I do believe in hell - as a state of mind, rather than a place. Or something like that. I'm not sure about the nature and/or existence of Hell.

Now since that sentence had too many negatives and it was too confusing, let me restate it.

I find it interesting and illuminating that when you assume that there is no Hell (because you don't like how it feels, I think) that you immediately and logically see an inference that you don't like at all - namely, that sin wouldn't matter. And in your mind and heart you KNOW that sin DOES matter. I think this is something to think about ... perhaps you are wrong about there being no Hell.

I certainly could be wrong. Hell, like Heaven, is a concept that's difficult to comprehend.
However I find Hell more difficult to comprehend. Doesn't God forgive our sins? Therefore we wouldn't go to Hell. And where do you draw the line? We are all sinners.
She probably doesn't forgive sins automatically.
I am confused on this point though, hence, Hell doesn't sit quite right in my worldview at the moment.

I certainly imagine that you would agree that "feeling" or "believing" something doesn't make a difference as to whether or not it's actually true, altho I think it can be an indicator to the truth.

Yes, I agree with that. Somethings can never be proven conclusively, but I feel that it's important to believe anyway.

See, IMO, the whole issue starts with the question "Is there a God?" And for THAT particular question, there IS a yes/no answer; there DOES exist an absolute truth about it. You can quibble about definitions of God, but it doesn't matter - the question is of a type that HAS a yes/no answer - altho at this point in time, we humans cannot prove it "scientifically" in a lab. But that should NOT stop us from attempting to answer it. There are LOTS of worthwhile questions that cannot be answered in a lab, and it is the BETTER thing, IMO, to attempt to answer them, even tho you may be wrong.

I also agree with this. Sadly, I have to go for lunch, so I'll respond to the rest of your excellent post later.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel

She probably doesn't forgive sins automatically.

Is see! You're from the 'God is a women and boy is she mad' camp!
By definition, philosophy, which is the basis for religion, searches for truth. Science is completely invalid in human terms; of course certain things can be proven, but what is the purpose of doing so if you cannot say why? Why do you think people like Newton were into philosophy and the esoteric? It is the 'why' to accompany the 'how'.
Do you not find, as I do, the more you delve into science, the more you find an order which it is folly to attribute to chance?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
[B]I dont know that religion is "searching" at all. Well I guess it depends what religion you speak of. Ive always thought of it as more of a way of living then trying to learn anything (other than maybe about yourself).

But some religions are threatened by science on certain levels and therefore theres a big fuss when the followers of these religions attempt to wrestle certain concepts away from science and toward religion. [/QUOTE] Well, I think it would be a bit more accurate to not make wholesale judgments here. I think it would be more accurate to start it out saying "But some FOLLOWERS of some religions are threatened .... big fuss when SOME followers of these religions ..."

I would be considered "religious" by most people, yet I have no problem at all with science (and if you're fair, you'll admit this - the only problem I ever have with evolutionism and creationism is when the unproven inferences are declared to be true, or when an unproven idea is declared to falsify another idea). I think science is great! It's a wonderful universe we live in - let's find out about it! Woo hoo!

From a discussion on the clotting of blood : "The modification of prothrombin does not happen by accident. Like virtually all biochemical reactions, it requires catalysis by a specific enzyme, however, the conversion of Glu to Gla needs another component: vitamin K. Vitamin K is not a protein; rather, it is a small molecule, like the 11-cis-retinal (described in chapter 1) that is necessary for vision.... "

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I dont know that religion is "searching" at all.

Hmmm, I think I agree with that *checks the temperature of H-E-doubletoothpicks*

I think people's minds and hearts were made to search, tho.

Well I guess it depends what religion you speak of. Ive always thought of it as more of a way of living then trying to learn anything (other than maybe about yourself).

I think the way you live comes out of what you believe to be true - I think we agree here, too!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Janny
Science is completely invalid in human terms; of course certain things can be proven, but what is the purpose of doing so if you cannot say why?

There's still a good purpose, IMO - to find out how things work, and to find out as much "why" as is possible (IOW, to go back to the blood clotting - why does blood clot in some people but not others? One reason is lack of vitamin K. What can we do to help the non-clotters? etc.)

Do you not find, as I do, the more you delve into science, the more you find an order which it is folly to attribute to chance?

Yes.

[Janny]

'Good' to the latter.
I didn't mean to demean work of scientist or purpose of science, all I meant was that it doesn't answer why, and the scientists who attempt to are seen as on the fringe.

[Rían]

Oh, I see - I misunderstood you - sorry

[Janny]

Ah, put it down to the incomprehensible style of the Jannmeister.
But the point stands, science doesn't search for why everything works.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Janny
Is see! You're from the 'God is a women and boy is she mad' camp!

No no no. I arbitrarily picked a pro-noun a few pages back and ended up sticking with it.

By definition, philosophy, which is the basis for religion, searches for truth. Science is completely invalid in human terms; of course certain things can be proven, but what is the purpose of doing so if you cannot say why? Why do you think people like Newton were into philosophy and the esoteric? It is the 'why' to accompany the 'how'.
Do you not find, as I do, the more you delve into science, the more you find an order which it is folly to attribute to chance?

It could be argued that nothing is left to completely random chance. But why not - is it because of God, science, or a combination of both? We'll probably never know for sure.

[Nurvingiel]

Ok now to respond to the rest of your post...

Originally posted by RÃ*an
See, IMO, the whole issue starts with the question "Is there a God?" And for THAT particular question, there IS a yes/no answer; there DOES exist an absolute truth about it. You can quibble about definitions of God, but it doesn't matter - the question is of a type that HAS a yes/no answer - altho at this point in time, we humans cannot prove it "scientifically" in a lab. But that should NOT stop us from attempting to answer it. There are LOTS of worthwhile questions that cannot be answered in a lab, and it is the BETTER thing, IMO, to attempt to answer them, even tho you may be wrong.

I don't think we'll ever be able to prove God exists. The most important thing, IMO, is to believe God exists. Then, no matter what, She does. (Now I'm also using 'She' to honk off Janny. j/k!)
Despite this, I agree, we should never stop delving into issues, and analyzing them, and trying to find answers.

When I first met my husband, I liked him right off - lovely dark hair, tall, very courteous and very masculine. We met at a Bible study - then didn't see each other for several months! (we were both going on business trips a lot). I next saw him at the 4th of July party - our group went 4-wheeling on some property the church owned and was going to build on. I thought that perhaps he liked me, too. Did I run to the store and purchase some scales and scientifically measure his heart to try to answer my question? No. The question is not scientifically answerable.

Of course you couldn't answer it scientifically. Modern science can answer many, but not all questions.
Your story about you and your husband is very sweet. With respect to the "debate" (for lack of a better word), I'm not sure what you're saying.
Unless it's just that not everything can be proven scientifically.

Anyway, all that to say that I think we can really analyze and discuss these issues in a profitable way, even tho they are NOT proveable in a scientific sense. And one of the best ways to consider these questions, IMO, is to:

• 1. assume they are true, then
  2. make valid logical inferences from them, then
  3. see if the inferences are true.

Do you see what I mean? Do you agree?

I don't completely see what you mean. I do, but I feel that I missed an important point somewhere.

I don't completely agree with the list though. If your assume your hypothesis is true at the start, you would introduce bias into the experiment.
However, you can test your hypothesis objectively. For example:

Null Hypothesis: Yellow cedar and Western redcedar are the same species.
Alternate Hypothesis: Yellow cedar and Western Redcedar are not the same species.

Inference: they are the same species, then they will produce viable offspring. (The offspring can intern, reproduce.)

Test: Cross Yellow cedar with Western redcedar. Cross any offspring.

Results: I have no idea what the results would really be. But let's say you got a few offspring in the first cross, and none in the second.
1st cross: 17 offspring in 1000 attempts.
2nd cross: 0 offspring in 17 attempts.

Conclusions: Analyze the results statisically to determine if there's a (statistically) significant number of offspring. (Since there were 0 offspring in the second cross the numbers would say they were not the same species.)
Therefore you would reject the null hypothesis, in favour of the alternate hypothesis.

Do you feel this would be an objective, scientific method? Is this the sort of reasoning you were getting at in your example?