Is science against the Revealed Religion?

[psychoslice]

then

I agree in spirit, but the pursuit of Truth is complex, as is natural law (the purely objective) and the other aspects of Truth--justice, love...and beauty (the purely subjective). Until we have some understanding about the nature of the aether in which our natural universe is suspended, and what caused it to be suspended there (here) in the first place, we are forced to deal with the purely objective. But we can't rule out the supernatural from having a place in the Big Picture. If and when we can start gleaning evidence from "before" the Big Bang, or from what is found "through" the Planck spacetime gaps in the fabric of our universe, then we may be able to draw some conclusions about the ultimate meaning of "before" and "through".

Yes we certainly cannot rule it out, but I don't think we should take it too serious, if its going to be revealed then it will, but until then we will have people telling us all sorts of stories, just like UFO's.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

then
Yes we certainly cannot rule it out, but I don't think we should take it too serious, if its going to be revealed then it will, but until then we will have people telling us all sorts of stories, just like UFO's.

Don't take what too seriously, how the universe came to be, and maybe why? If you have the first inkling either way, I'm all ears.

 

[psychoslice]

Don't take what too seriously, how the universe came to be, and maybe why? If you have the first inkling either way, I'm all ears.

Like you I have no idea how it all happened, and I don't really care how it happened, all I know is that I am here, and I am having a great time, yea baby.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Like you I have no idea how it all happened, and I don't really care how it happened, all I know is that I am here, and I am having a great time, yea baby.

No matter who you are or what you do, the big D is always there. And besides that, aren't you the least bit curious? And then there's this:
If the universe was created by a God, it's obvious (revealed religionists notwithstanding) that it was designed so that there was no evidence for It's existence (thus supporting our free will), and none against it (which would be a lie). This perfect lack of evidence either way, would seem to indicate design, since with spontaneous creation we could reasonably expect there would be some evidence. Contrariwise (love that word), we can't use a total lack of evidence, as evidence. For me, the only difference between atheism and deism (the only two reasonable positions on God) is that the latter offers hope.

What about those who are born with no possibility for a good time, only drudgery, boredom and/or suffering? What if you were thrown into that situation? Do you give up, or stick it out in hopes that there's some form of justice and fulfillment that's too ethereal for this proving ground? Again, contrariwise, if you're wrong to hope, you'll never know it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Still all give their sentiments and feeling about the revealed religion, none provides any concrete thing from science as requested in the OP.
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Still all give their sentiments and feeling about the revealed religion, none provides any concrete thing from science as requested in the OP.
Regards

There won't, and never could be, a scientific paper dealing with divine hearsay. Science, by definition, deals with rational knowledge and information in a rational manner. No scientist would write a paper on 2-3K year old superstitious hearsay stories about how the world was never flooded with water, how the Sun could never have stopped rotating around the Earth for 12 hours, how people have never come back from the dead, or the universe was not created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, etc. etc. etc.--much less find some peers to review them. What's to be learned from shooting fish in a barrel?

Science would have no rational evidence to work with, leaving the only possible avenue for scientific investigation to be the human emotional underpinnings for blind faith--such as the fear of death. The OP is a proposition set up to fail. If you want to pursue that route, there's this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/ from Scientific American on "How Critical Thinkers Loose Their Faith in God", which references two papers from the peer-reviewed journals, Science, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.

 

[paarsurrey]

There won't, and never could be, a scientific paper dealing with divine hearsay. Science, by definition, deals with rational knowledge and information in a rational manner. No scientist would write a paper on 2-3K year old superstitious hearsay stories about how the world was never flooded with water, how the Sun could never have stopped rotating around the Earth for 12 hours, how people have never come back from the dead, or the universe was not created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, etc. etc. etc.--much less find some peers to review them. What's to be learned from shooting fish in a barrel?

Science would have no rational evidence to work with, leaving the only possible avenue for scientific investigation to be the human emotional underpinnings for blind faith--such as the fear of death. The OP is a proposition set up to fail. If you want to pursue that route, there's this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/ from Scientific American on "How Critical Thinkers Loose Their Faith in God", which references two papers from the peer-reviewed journals, Science, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.

It is simply wrong. Did Sir Isaac Newton lose faith in G-d? Was he not a critical thinker? Was he not a scientist?
Religion is not against critical thinking? Please quote from the revealed religion where it opposes the critical thinking.
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is simply wrong. Did Sir Isaac Newton lose faith in G-d? Was he not a critical thinker? Was he not a scientist?
Religion is not against critical thinking? Please quote from the revealed religion where it opposes the critical thinking.
Regards

I'm a critical thinker and trained scientist (geologist) with a degree who believes in God. But that doesn't mean I claim certain knowledge that God exists, and I certainly don't claim any scientific basis for a belief in divine revelation or intervention. There have always been, and remain today, reasons for critical thinkers to publicly hold hypocritical, contradictory beliefs, from fear of death to public isolation to mental irrationality to youthful indoctrination. The list of things that have been done in the name of tradition or because that's the way things have always been done thus and so, and "everybody knows", is infinite and horrifying.

In any case, I gave you your scientific peer-reviewed papers, so you fall back on your "faith" in God based on nothing but your emotional desire to believe, and possibly a fear of a hell no loving, rational God would ever abide. If there is a hereafter, the only possibility is that we, bathed in the undeniable light of Truth, will judge ourselves. Those unable to bare the waste and horror they made of their lives would have the ability to exercise an option of oblivion. Eternal hellfire is the invention of vindictive, sadistic minds.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm a critical thinker and trained scientist (geologist) with a degree who believes in God. But that doesn't mean I claim certain knowledge that God exists, and I certainly don't claim any scientific basis for a belief in divine revelation or intervention. There have always been, and remain today, reasons for critical thinkers to publicly hold hypocritical, contradictory beliefs, from fear of death to public isolation to mental irrationality to youthful indoctrination. The list of things that have been done in the name of tradition or because that's the way things have always been done thus and so, and "everybody knows", is infinite and horrifying.

In any case, I gave you your scientific peer-reviewed papers, so you fall back on your "faith" in God based on nothing but your emotional desire to believe, and possibly a fear of a hell no loving, rational God would ever abide. If there is a hereafter, the only possibility is that we, bathed in the undeniable light of Truth, will judge ourselves. Those unable to bare the waste and horror they made of their lives would have the ability to exercise an option of oblivion. Eternal hellfire is the invention of vindictive, sadistic minds.

Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

If so, to prove this, please, quote from :

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Anyone who claims the positive is using a straw man. Science cannot be "against" anything. It is a process of gaining understanding about the physical world. If scientific discoveries contradict a religious belief, that belief should be severely questioned.

 

[leibowde84]

Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?
Regards

People did it a lot in their names.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?
Regards

What?

 

[leibowde84]

Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?
Regards

Did scientists ever torcher them?

 

[paarsurrey]

Did scientists ever torcher them?

No, there was no need to.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?

What?

They were rational and pragmatic persons, they were the real critical thinkers and visionaries and cream of the humanity.
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

No matter who you are or what you do, the big D is always there. And besides that, aren't you the least bit curious? And then there's this:
If the universe was created by a God, it's obvious (revealed religionists notwithstanding) that it was designed so that there was no evidence for It's existence (thus supporting our free will), and none against it (which would be a lie). This perfect lack of evidence either way, would seem to indicate design, since with spontaneous creation we could reasonably expect there would be some evidence. Contrariwise (love that word), we can't use a total lack of evidence, as evidence. For me, the only difference between atheism and deism (the only two reasonable positions on God) is that the latter offers hope.

What about those who are born with no possibility for a good time, only drudgery, boredom and/or suffering? What if you were thrown into that situation? Do you give up, or stick it out in hopes that there's some form of justice and fulfillment that's too ethereal for this proving ground? Again, contrariwise, if you're wrong to hope, you'll never know it.

No I can't agree with that, just believing in some to give you hope is pretty childish to me, and if you are believing in deism for that hope and you have no proof whatever, then you should keep that hope to yourself, or others who agree with you, but not to go out and arguing over it being true. Like children believe in Santa, but if that child is to grow up and argue that Santa is real is ridiculers, do you see what I mean ?.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No I can't agree with that, just believing in some to give you hope is pretty childish to me, and if you are believing in deism for that hope and you have no proof whatever, then you should keep that hope to yourself, or others who agree with you, but not to go out and arguing over it being true. Like children believe in Santa, but if that child is to grow up and argue that Santa is real is ridiculers, do you see what I mean ?.

Mere belief is false hope. Genuine hope is derived from a reasonable possibility. And as I've said, there's no evidence for or against it or atheism--but since there are only two equally likely/unlikely possibilities.....50-50 is better odds by far than anything else can illogically offer.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?

People did it a lot in their names.

That is wrong.
It is the same thing as Anti-theists/Atheists would claim for science as if they are spokespersons of science, while science won't claim anything.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one think that others cannot have a critical thinking/view about the article published in Scientific American that one provided the link ? It is totally irrational to generalize from those who did not understanding the concepts of the the revealed religion correctly.
Did Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Socrates Muhammad torture or kill any scientist?



That is wrong.
It is the same thing as Anti-theists/Atheists would claim for science as if they are spokespersons of science, while science won't claim anything.
Regards

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. People have killed and torchered many people in the name of the men you mentioned explicitly. Anti-theists/Atheists don't very often kill or torcher explicitly in the name of science. If anyone thinks differently, they are going off mere speculation. There is a big difference when people explicitly assign their actions to a religion or religious figure. It is something that should be acknowledged.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No I can't agree with that, just believing in some to give you hope is pretty childish to me, and if you are believing in deism for that hope and you have no proof whatever, then you should keep that hope to yourself, or others who agree with you, but not to go out and arguing over it being true. Like children believe in Santa, but if that child is to grow up and argue that Santa is real is ridiculers, do you see what I mean ?.

You're coming at me with your preconceived ideas. I didn't start with hope and then find a place to back it in; reason reduced the possibilities to deism and atheism--that but for hope, are the same from our perspective. How is it childish to choose hope? To me, many atheists believe as they do as a form of rebellion for it's own sake, while they all try to rationalize the pointlessness of our threescore-ten and out. Even if you saved the world, it would be a meaningless gesture.

Telling me to keep my hope to myself is defensive in the extreme. Comparing Santa with God is ridiculous. Santa Clause, like all the revealed gods, is a lie. But God, a deist God, is a 50-50 possibility against no God. Reasonable atheists, like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have been forced to admit that a deistic, laissez faire God is a possibility. You have no evidence either way because there is none--but the universe remains, demanding an explanation.