Is Science Better Than Religion?

[Bunyip]

Hold on...you made a statement that implied scientific claims by religious people should amenable to the scientific method...yes?

I replied that yes, that's the way science works...yes?

And now you contradict your first post and instead imply it is honesty, and not scientific claims that should be amenable to the scientific method, because that's the way honesty works?

What contradiction? You must have misread. That scientific claims made by religious people must be amenable to the scientific method is a simply question of honesty.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Both God and science were invented by English gentlemen, along with sandwiches, wellington boots, cricket and Arabia. Sandwiches are more useful than God though.

 

[RossRonin]

Evolution is fact no matter how hard you fight it.

Evolution has wide appeal because it offers pat answers to hard questions, besides being a handy excuse for atheism; but truth be told, it is an ill-founded and unlikely theory no matter how loudly academia proclaims it. Search high and low inside or outside the laboratory and it is guaranteed that you will never find the smallest bacterium "evolving" a more efficiently designed organelle (much less a brand new organelle). A process whereby inherited random genetic mutations in simple life forms become highly complex organisms by the sweep of a magic wand called Natural Selection is more science fiction than fact.

Random mutations never produce positive changes: nor can they write code, design cellular structures, engineer highly integrated biological systems, or otherwise accomplish any of the enormously complex tasks involved in sustaining and propagating life. There is no force in nature capable of creating or designing anything.

What passes for "evolutionary forces" at work in the lab environment are increasingly found to be mechanisms associated with transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. A yeast strain gaining resistance to some toxin, for example, is not evolving anything new at all. Its DNA is responding to chemical switches already in place. What you really need to show us is a saccharomyces cerevisiae cell with a budding flagella. That's about as likely as finding a winged horse. Evolution and Natural Selection are not fact at all. The notion that the immense complexity of plant and animal life we see integrated throughout all the ecosystems of the earth are the product of random genetic mutations is almost comical: but it is the next best thing to believing in a Creator.

Evolution grants you freedom from conscience, and lets you enjoy the illusion of objective morality.

I can't remember if it was in Exodus or in Joshua, but I seemed to recall a battle in which God stopped the Sun from moving in the sky...Only the utter idiots would believe that such thing could happen.

I think it could happen. And according to my toughest critic (my girlfriend) I'm not an utter idiot. Borderline, maybe.

Remember, the scriptures do not say the earth stopped rotating. They say the sun and moon maintained their position in the sky relative to two geographic points: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."

To cause that effect you would only need to distort the spacetime continuum in a localized area, planet Earth in this situation. A dramatic decrease in earth's gravitational field would have the effect of speeding up time on the earth's surface, relative to what was being observed in the heavens. I realize this would make everybody so light they would float away, but there may be a solution for that problem too: my only point being that things not conceivable to us (because science has yet to unlock most of the universe's secrets) are not necessarily impossible to a Creator. Not by hocus pocus, but by manipulation of forces affecting time and space, matter and energy.

Look at the regressive influence of creationism for example.

Regressive influence? Not in this century. To begin with, Creationism or Intelligent Design as theories impose no moral constraints and no intellectual constraints. The opposite is true, in fact. The paradigm of Creationism gives hi-tech inventors and engineers a wealth of brilliantly designed 'inventions' which they can imitate, replicate, or emulate (one obvious example is flight). We think we are so smart, but in fact all we do is unravel the mystery of what God has already done. What human could ever conceive of things on his or her own that remotely approach the ingenuity of what is already in existence? (Take the fairer sex for example. Nobody, however much a genius, could ever think up an Alice Eve or a Monica Bellucci.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What contradiction? You must have misread. That scientific claims made by religious people must be amenable to the scientific method is a simply question of honesty.

Ok, lets keep everyone honest with this addition....

It is simply a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method...

 

[Bunyip]

Ok, lets keep everyone honest with this addition....

It is simply a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method...

Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant.

 

[Bunyip]

ben d

What claim did you have in mind?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant.

What on earth are we supposed to be talking about....do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc.?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d

What claim did you have in mind?

What scientific claims do you have in mind?

 

[DoubtingNate]

Yes. The same principles of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. that allow us to drive cars and post on message boards are the same principles that led to the evolution of our planet and the life that inhabits it. We know these principles are reliable because of what they have allowed us to accomplish. Richard Dawkins sums it up beautifully:

“[Science] works! Planes fly. Cars drive. Computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works... *****es.”

― Richard Dawkins

 

[Bunyip]

What on earth are we supposed to be talking about....do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc.?

All of those fields are the same regardless of atheism, agnosticism or theism. They are a different issue. Science is the same whether atheist, agnostic or theist. It is irrelevant.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes. The same principles of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. that allow us to drive cars and post on message boards are the same principles that led to the evolution of our planet and the life that inhabits it. We know these principles are reliable because of what they have allowed us to accomplish. Richard Dawkins sums it up beautifully:

“[Science] works! Planes fly. Cars drive. Computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works... *****es.”

― Richard Dawkins

Bingo dude!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All of those fields are the same regardless of atheism, agnosticism or theism. They are a different issue. Science is the same whether atheist, agnostic or theist. It is irrelevant.

I know that...but you said in response to my commenting that is was a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method...."Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant."....

So anyway...we now agree that the same honesty is required by all parties...yes..

Btw, I dislike wasting time....can you try and concentrate before you post? No need to answer....

 

[Bunyip]

I know that...but you said in response ot you singling out religious poster that it is also a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method...and you replied tom saying...."Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant."....

So anyway...we now agree that the same honesty is required by all parties...yes..

Btw, I dislike wasting time....can you try and concentrate before you post? No need to answer....

Nice. And yes, atheists, agnostics and theists all bear the same burden of evidence for whatever claims they make.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is Science Better Than Religion?

Firstly, it depends what you mean by "better".

Secondly, yes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All of those fields are the same regardless of atheism, agnosticism or theism. They are a different issue. Science is the same whether atheist, agnostic or theist. It is irrelevant.

Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate..

 

[Bunyip]

Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate..

There are no multiples, you are just losing your cool. Catch you later Ben.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate..

Really? What they said was extremely clear. You're asserting that atheists make claims about "big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum", but these claims are neither required of nor exclusive to atheism. They are not claims atheists necessarily make, and thus are a separate issue as to whether or not atheism itself requires the making of a claim. One can be an atheist, but not believe in - or make claims about - any scientific phenomenon whatsoever, while theists of all kinds exist who understand and make claims about all manner of scientific inquiry. Atheism and an understanding of science are not exclusive.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We think we are so smart, but in fact all we do is unravel the mystery of what God has already done

What you mean is that nature can be a great teacher. No need to bring God beliefs into it.

 

[outhouse]

We've been over this time and time again....

Most figure out the two are not compatible in all areas.

religious doctrine is full of allegory, metaphor, parable, etc

Has no place in science.

This is not about letting religion into science. Its about theist learning science, and being able to substantiate their position.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is Science Better Than Religion?

Yes.