Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...

[Guy Threepwood]

Saying that creation needs a creator does not in any way suggest that an intelligent being was involved.

well not to restart that whole convo, but many atheists absolutely disagreed with you on the implication of a creation event re. an intelligent creator, and explicitly cited that to reject the Big Bang.

But you have to account for the functional composition of the universe somehow, fluke is possible, just as the waves washing 'help' up on the beach in rocks on the deserted island is possible. That doesn't make 'fluke' the most probable answer though.

 

[Bunyip]

well not to restart that whole convo, but many atheists absolutely disagreed with you on the implication of a creation event re. an intelligent creator, and explicitly cited that to reject the Big Bang.

Not that I could see. A creation event does not in any way suggest an intelligence.

But you have to account for the functional composition of the universe somehow, fluke is possible, just as the waves washing 'help' up on the beach in rocks on the deserted island is possible. That doesn't make 'fluke' the most probable answer though.

Who cares? Fluke is not the answer - so why mention it?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Interesting study.

What do you make of it? Why?

Off topic but ICELAND is considered the most technologically innovative? Really? China and Japan I get but is Iceland really a full head and shoulder above both of them? What?

Though back on topic I don't think this actually works with pagan religions in some cases. Depending on the theology the Pagan practices are intertwined with the physical world and things like evolution, gravity ect are all fully accepted. There are times where this isn't true but I have found no scientific discovery that stands in opposition to my faith.

And Iceland has like 90% of their population at least believe its possible that Huldufolk exist. This is indicative that not only having a belief can affect innovation but more so the nature of that belief.

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

As a Buddhist we love science, learning, testing. Neuroscience is a good starting point. Biology a must.

 

[Excaljnur]

Interesting study.

What do you make of it? Why?

I'm sorry, but I've never seen RELIGION and SCIENCE as enemies. There are religious people that ignore science giving the impression that science is their enemy. However, I think that this conflict doesn't actually exist simply because there are incredibly intelligent Christian scientists.

So maybe the real question is whether the BELIEF IN GOD and SCIENCE are enemies.

If so, perhaps, based on your personal position on the existence of God, its actually DOGMATIC BELIEFS and SCIENCE that are enemies.

 

[BUTSeriously]

Where there's a big and significant difference is with their basic methodology, namely that science is based on objectively-derived evidence whereas religion is based on hearsay minus such evidence. To put it another way, religious beliefs are mostly "unfalsifiable", unlike science.

IMHO, science comes from a religion. The first record of the universe's structure & origins is seen in Genesis, namely that the uni is 'finite' with a beginning. This is not an un-scientific thought, but one of only two possibilities, with all evidences inclined with Genesis [The BBT, Expanding universe, that nothing we know is infinite]. The first scientific equation is 'A seed shall follow its own kind'. Species, or the separation of life form groupings, is also from Genesis. Medicine comes from the Hebrew Bible with the first separation from the occult, with the ID, Treatment & quarantine given for malignant, incurable diseases like Leprosy. The world turns on laws from this religion almost exclusively, to the extent those who do not follow its judiciary, family, moral, ethical laws are seen as lawless. Liberty, inalienable human rights, women's rights, animal rights, separation of state & religion, even democracy comes from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew is humanity's most impacting writing, and that religions have a negative view today cannot be made pervasively for all such writings.

 

[BUTSeriously]

Religion and religious mentality is almost the complete opposite of science and scientific thinking, so I'm surprised theses two being enemies has not blown in bigger proportions.

Depends. There are no scientific alternatives to a universe maker based on a finite universe. Name one?

 

[metis]

IMHO, science comes from a religion...

Actually it doesn't to the point whereas often scientific evidence and hypotheses often butted heads against many religious concepts. Certainly they are not polar opposites as there are many in both science and religion that interrelate, but their m.o. simply are very different.

 

[LuisDantas]

Depends. There are no scientific alternatives to a universe maker based on a finite universe. Name one?

That may or may not be true, but it is quite irrelevant. You are taking as a premise that it is meaningful whether there is some sort of statement about the origin of the universe in science. Such is not the case.

I suspect you are using an innacurate concept of science.

 

[viole]

Depends. There are no scientific alternatives to a universe maker based on a finite universe. Name one?

How does finiteness necessitate a creator? Many things are finite, that does not entail that they have been consciously created.

And by the way, what makes you think that the Universe is finite?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Avi1001]

How does finiteness necessitate a creator? Many things are finite, that does not entail that they have been consciously created.

And by the way, what makes you think that the Universe is finite?

Ciao

- viole

How could the universe be expanding unless it was finite ?

 

[viole]

How could the universe be expanding unless it was finite ?

You can have an infinite universe expanding easily. All you need is expansion of mutual space distances.

What speaks, for instance,against an infinite string punctuated with pearls in which the mutual distance between the pearls increases with time? Mathematically, this is a simple transformation.

The real question is: how could a Universe, that was very small in the past, be now infinite?

But this is left a simple exercise to the reader

Fact is, the same scientists who accept the Big Bang, do not know whether the Universe is infinite or not. For instance, Gouth, thinks it is infinite.

Why do they have such doubts, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiapan]

There are some key axiomatic differences
The main one is this
Religion is top down, science is bottom up.
Religion - the creature of the god species (Complexium giganticus) makes little people, gets his clockwork key winds them up, and lets them go on an average planet in an average universe and watches them like a kid in the sandpit. (ie some super-human watchmaker being created us).
Science starts with little things called quarks which coalesce into atoms which form molecules which in some circumstances in trillions of places simultaneously are mixed and remixed over billions of years, at the molecular level and if only one in the quadrillions of these micro-experiments succeeds (like the lotto where the odds for you to win are low but every week someone becomes an instant millionaire) and we get many of the correct compounds required to perform processes we have called life, in the one little place at the same time, this is called abiogenesis which led to what we now define under the topic called Biology. In other words, small things gets more complex over time resulting in what we see today. All very logical, plausible bottom up technology.

If I have time will post some more of these key difference especially
Entropy vs God,
The law of entropy would indicate the universe is not yet cold enough or complex enough support a gods existence.

Cheers

 

[psychoslice]

Yes one is knowledge, and the other ignorance.

 

[Avi1001]

....Fact is, the same scientists who accept the Big Bang, do not know whether the Universe is infinite or not. For instance, Gouth, thinks it is infinite.

Why do they have such doubts, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

Since you are asking me this question...viole...I will try to provide an answer....we do not yet have the instrumentation to answer this question....so I will answer your question....with a question...if it takes long enough to develop the instrumentation....so that at that point it will have taken half the age of the universe...to develop this instrumentation.,.,how long will it take.....???....answer...we better start right away...

 

[viole]

Since you are asking me this question...viole...I will try to provide an answer....we do not yet have the instrumentation to answer this question....so I will answer your question....with a question...if it takes long enough to develop the instrumentation....so that at that point it will have taken half the age of the universe...to develop this instrumentation.,.,how long will it take.....???....answer...we better start right away...

Well, the problem is that instrumentation might no suffice.

We are condemned to see only the visible Universe, which is sphere whose radius increases with time, from our vantage point. The surface of this sphere is the oldest we can see, ergo the Universe close at he big bang. How such a huge sphere could be a small universe is also left as an exercise

Waht we could possibly see is necessarily finite, given the constraints of the speed of light. And what we improperly call singularity is what our visible universe was. We have no clue about the rest.

What we know is that the Universe is flat, on large scale. So, it could be finite or infinite. It could be finite and look like a doughnut that, against intuition, is a actually a flat surface.

We will be able, if we will be able, to show that is finite or infinite only with the support of theoretical tools that need to be validated by applying them to what we see. Direct observation is physically impossible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sure Einstein would have had some interesting things to say about the "study."

 

[BUTSeriously]

How does finiteness necessitate a creator? Many things are finite, that does not entail that they have been consciously created.

And by the way, what makes you think that the Universe is finite?

Ciao

- viole

Consider what finite means, when aligned with the universe. It says once the universe never existed, and thus everything contained in the universe also never existed; MV & parallel Uni's, actions, expansions, cooling, heating, bangs, etc become violations of the finite preamble, so we must negate them all. Thus, time, space, light, energy, darkness, laws & pineapples never existed pre-universe. Thus no alternatives can apply. We are left only with an entity that is able to produce a universe, by the process of elimination, which is a scientific mode.
It is the reason I respect the opening preamble in Genesis, and I do so from a non-theological view. It challenges: "In the beginning God'. Basically, that says: 1. there was a beginning for the heavens & the earth [universe], namely that it is finite; and 2. that God existed notwithstanding. I know of no scientific response to negate that verse, or anything else that can apply.

Usually, our new age science goes walkabout to an infinite universe, understandably. But they fall if they confront Genesis on its own terms: an absolutely non-negotiable finite universe.

 

[viole]

Consider what finite means, when aligned with the universe. It says once the universe never existed, and thus everything contained in the universe also never existed; MV & parallel Uni's, actions, expansions, cooling, heating, bangs, etc become violations of the finite preamble, so we must negate them all. Thus, time, space, light, energy, darkness, laws & pineapples never existed pre-universe. Thus no alternatives can apply. We are left only with an entity that is able to produce a universe, by the process of elimination, which is a scientific mode.
It is the reason I respect the opening preamble in Genesis, and I do so from a non-theological view. It challenges: "In the beginning God'. Basically, that says: 1. there was a beginning for the heavens & the earth [universe], namely that it is finite; and 2. that God existed notwithstanding. I know of no scientific response to negate that verse, or anything else that can apply.

Usually, our new age science goes walkabout to an infinite universe, understandably. But they fall if they confront Genesis on its own terms: an absolutely non-negotiable finite universe.

Concepts like never, orr beginning or any tensed verb you might use to explain the origin of things is physically meaningless.

And the only Genesis I take seriously is the rock band with that name. At least during the 70s, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BUTSeriously]

Concepts like never, orr beginning or any tensed verb you might use to explain the origin of things is physically meaningless.

And the only Genesis I take seriously is the rock band with that name. At least during the 70s, lol.

Ciao

- viole

That's not a response. Genesis is the first document that said there is a beginning of the universe - it is perhaps the most profound statement any human has uttered.