Science and Religion: Allies Not Enemies

[lewisnotmiller]

Also, don't forget anything bad in the world. Haven't you noticed the increasing levels of everything bad in the wold? That's emotionless evolutionists, obviously.

I hesitate to blame all of it on the evolutionists. There are also Laker fans.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I hesitate to blame all of it on the evolutionists. There are also Laker fans.

Islamic extremism is obviously a religious / ideological issue. Evolution theory is the major distorting influence on religion / ideology in the world.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How can there absolutely be a "creation" if the existence of the creator is merely an opinion?

Because the decisions by which is created are fact. The decisions can be seen as fact. It's just logically a matter of opinion what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Exactly.
It's a huge flaw in the argument.

It means you have no idea whatsoever how any subjectivity works.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I believe George Washington Carver is a good example. He was a Christian, but a scientist and a mystic as well. He wasn't the first or last to balance science with his religious life. Some of the best scientists also happened to be religious and also into magic stuff.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Islamic extremism is obviously a religious / ideological issue. Evolution theory is the major distorting influence on religion / ideology in the world.

Exactly. Not like the non-distorted days of the Crusades, when people knew what was what, and why they wanted to butcher each other.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Exactly. Not like the non-distorted days of the Crusades, when people knew what was what, and why they wanted to butcher each other.

Right that was a long time ago, and is not really much relevant today. Also the colonialism is not much relevant. It is actually ideological issues which are relevant. And evolution theory is the main distorting influence in ideologies / religion in the entire world now, just as it was with world war 1 and world war 2.

There are also issues within Islam, and these would be the same sort of issues as social darwinism. Where social darwinism makes good and evil into a scientific fact, it could be that the authority of God impresses some muslims to conceive of good and evil as fact. There are lots of different pressures and temptations which can lead people to conceive of good and evil as fact, and thereby excluding subjectivity.

Seeing as that democracy with freedom of opinion and religion on the whole leads to peace, it is ideology which counters that which is the problem. And conceiving of good and evil as fact denies freedom of opinion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because the decisions by which is created are fact. The decisions can be seen as fact. It's just logically a matter of opinion what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does.

For a decision to be made, there must be something to do the deciding. There must, logically following your argument, be a decider.
But if the existence of that decider is merely a personal opinion, then you have no basis for the claim that "decisions by which things are created is fact".
If your premise isn't based in factual reality, then nothing after your premise can be considered a fact. Anything you claim is merely a subjective assertion.

It would appear, then, that you are the one who doesn't quite understand how subjectivity works.

It means you have no idea whatsoever how any subjectivity works.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For a decision to be made, there must be something to do the deciding. There must, logically following your argument, be a decider.
But if the existence of that decider is merely a personal opinion, then you have no basis for the claim that "decisions by which things are created is fact".
If your premise isn't based in factual reality, then nothing after your premise can be considered a fact. Anything you claim is merely a subjective assertion.

It would appear, then, that you are the one who doesn't quite understand how subjectivity works.

You are wrong and I am right. And in common discourse it is regarded as fact that a decision is made, and regarded as opinion what the motivation was that made the decision turn out the way it did, what was in their heart.

 

[Nakosis]

I think that science and religion are allies and not enemies. The confusion stems from what they do, and from the fact they look at issues from a different perspective.

I think they both want to be seen as the authority when making future predictions. And of course the correct moral stance to bring about the preferred future.

Not religion and science, but the folks which support them. Religious folks want people to look towards their religions beliefs for answers. Science folks want you to accept science as the proper source for answers. Really behavior. Answers as to the proper social behavior. In other words how you should behave to bring about the desired future.

You can only have one master/authority where they conflict, you're going to have to choose.

I'm not saying all science and religion is like this, just that this is were I think the war comes from.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You are wrong and I am right.

I'm fairly certain you don't understand how debating works.

And in common discourse it is regarded as fact that a decision is made, and regarded as opinion what the motivation was that made the decision turn out the way it did, what was in their heart.

You may also be confused about what common discourse is...
Common discourse is nothing more than the way in which we communicate. It is set and established organically by those taking part in a conversation. You cannot simply demand that a conversation go a certain way and then expect everyone in the world to conform to your rules. Doing so is quite contrary to "common discourse".

Your subjective interpretation of any factual event is still nothing more than a subjective opinion. That is all that it is and that is all that it will ever be.
You are quite free to openly opine about a creator God and what his motivations may or may not have been for creating anything at all. But without substantiating arguments or evidence, your opinions are pretty worthless.

You are operating under a severe presupposition that existence is indeed a creation, requiring a creator. Until you can substantially prove that existence is a creation which required a creator, you have no right, privilege, or authority to tell anyone that they are right or wrong about anything.

 

[dust1n]

I hesitate to blame all of it on the evolutionists. There are also Laker fans.

I tried to think of some sort of banter or wry remark all day, and I just couldn't come up with a sufficient. Therefore, I yield. Btw, Laker fans reference from an Aussie. How's that happen?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I tried to think of some sort of banter or wry remark all day, and I just couldn't come up with a sufficient. Therefore, I yield. Btw, Laker fans reference from an Aussie. How's that happen?

I bleed green. Celts all the way.
NBA tragics are everywhere, mate. Can talk advanced analyticals, whether John Stockton was the sneaky dirtiest player of his era, and why Dwight Howard isnt a top 10 all time centre without breaking a sweat.

Heck, my username is basketball related.

Reggie Lewis...not Reggie Miller.
(My dog was named Reggie)

Also my home office includes signed Bird and Lewis memorabilia, and Id LOVE to get a Bill Russell Dons singlet.

Yeah...there's more, like the story behind how i ended up on RF which is wierdly basketball related, but you get the idea.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Right that was a long time ago, and is not really much relevant today.

Ok. Me, I was making a point about the nature of a world WITHOUT evolutionists. Ya kinda have to go back a ways. I suspect we have differing opinions about the timelessness of human nature then.

Also the colonialism is not much relevant. It is actually ideological issues which are relevant. And evolution theory is the main distorting influence in ideologies / religion in the entire world now, just as it was with world war 1 and world war 2.

I'd be interested in hearing a coherent rationalisation of evolutions role in the start of ww1....

There are also issues within Islam, and these would be the same sort of issues as social darwinism. Where social darwinism makes good and evil into a scientific fact, it could be that the authority of God impresses some muslims to conceive of good and evil as fact. There are lots of different pressures and temptations which can lead people to conceive of good and evil as fact, and thereby excluding subjectivity.

Why do you flip between the scientific theories of evolution and a moral cesspool like social Darwinism?
You're not conflating them, surely?

Seeing as that democracy with freedom of opinion and religion on the whole leads to peace, it is ideology which counters that which is the problem. And conceiving of good and evil as fact denies freedom of opinion.

You always trot out this line without clarifying in an understandable manner. I don't believe in objective morality. I don't see good and evil as fact. But you constantly say I do. Colour me confused.

 

[dust1n]

I bleed green. Celts all the way.
NBA tragics are everywhere, mate. Can talk advanced analyticals, whether John Stockton was the sneaky dirtiest player of his era, and why Dwight Howard isnt a top 10 all time centre without breaking a sweat.

Heck, my username is basketball related.

Reggie Lewis...not Reggie Miller.
(My dog was named Reggie)

Also my home office includes signed Bird and Lewis memorabilia, and Id LOVE to get a Bill Russell Dons singlet.

Yeah...there's more, like the story behind how i ended up on RF which is wierdly basketball related, but you get the idea.

Never would of guessed. Any of it..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Never would of guessed. Any of it..

Yep. In real life, people know me as a basketball tragic, not so much a religion and history geek.
Heck, im 40 and i still play competitively twice a week.

 

[dust1n]

Yep. In real life, people know me as a basketball tragic, not so much a religion and history geek.
Heck, im 40 and i still play competitively twice a week.

Have you played a kangaroo yet?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Have you played a kangaroo yet?

Nah. I prefer to play things that can't jump these days. Old men with leg injuries are about my favourite flavour of opponent.

 

[dust1n]

Nah. I prefer to play things that can't jump these days. Old men with leg injuries are about my favourite flavour of opponent.

Listen to music when you play?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Listen to music when you play?

Used to play a lot of pickup, and then...sure...
Just comp now, so no music.
Coached a little as well, which I enjoy.