Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[michel]

Why would you think that? A cursory reading of post #14 shows that you've done nothing of the kind. This thread is on "the divide between science and religion". You bemoan "the extremists on both sides", though plaintively and always punctuated by some smiley. So, I ask once again: who are these extremist scientists?

Well, I think if you read my previous post that I tried to define the extremists as those who will only accept concepts that stem from their beliefs; the 'extreme' scientist would therefore be one who refuses to accept anything in life without proof. Just as the extremist theologiam would be the one who insists on taking every passage in the Bible as absolute, and not to be interpreted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I think if you read my previous post that I tried to define the extremists as those who ...

I'm sorry, michel, but I'm really fairly proficient at reading and quite confident that I understood what you wrote. But I didn't ask you to characterize these extremist scientists, i.e., I didn't ask you what they were but who they were. Now, yet again, who are these extreme scientists that you position on one side of the divide? It's an easy question.

 

[michel]

I'm sorry, michel, but I'm really fairly proficient at reading and quite confident that I understood what you wrote. But I didn't ask you to characterize these extremist scientists, i.e., I didn't ask you what they were but who they were. Now, yet again, who are these extreme scientists that you position on one side of the divide? It's an easy question.

Ah, you mean you want their names and addresses ?

 

[Cynic]

I think conflict is created between Science and Religion due to the balance of two principals. These two being Reasoning (questioning) and Faith (accepting) in Truth.

It's simple really. Religion is subjective, and science deposes of what is entirely subjectivistic and anecdotal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah, you mean you want their names and addresses ?

No, michel, I wanted juvenile sarcasm employed to avoid/evade the question. Thanks for coming through.

 

[michel]

No, michel, I wanted juvenile sarcasm employed to avoid/evade the question. Thanks for coming through.

I had already replied to your question twice; you were using your tactic of perpetually repeating the question because the answer you got was prsumably not the one you wwere after. If you really are interested in a clarification of what I answered, then please ask me, and I will do my best to answer - which as far as I am concerned, until my sarcastic comment, I had been doing.

 

[Quiddity]

The example I gave in post #96 seems like a fellow scientist who is extreme.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=215143#post215143

~Victor

 

[Ryan2065]

Well, I think if you read my previous post that I tried to define the extremists as those who will only accept concepts that stem from their beliefs; the 'extreme' scientist would therefore be one who refuses to accept anything in life without proof.

Your definition of extreme would count for anyone who was hearing a different idea. Think of it this way, by your definition of extreme, a scientist has to believe ideas that he hears without any proof what so ever. So I could come up to the scientist and say that gravity wont work tomorrow, but I have no proof, if he isn't extreme, he will believe me. =)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I only know of one or two extremists Deut - I would define an extremist as one who has tunnel vision and refuses to accept that there is any validity in the belief that is contrary to his/hers.

So if I do not accept that there is any validity in the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth, I am an extremist?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I had already replied to your question twice; ...

But you have clearly not answered it. Why is that? How is it that you bemoan the actions of the scientist extremist and yet are incapable of mentioning a single member of that sinister cabal? Ask virtually anyone about religious extremists and dozens of examples come readily to mind.

A request (which you will no doubt reject): next time you pass judgement on a subset of scientists please make sure they're more than a figment of your imagination.

 

[michel]

But you have clearly not answered it. Why is that? How is it that you bemoan the actions of the scientist extremist and yet are incapable of mentioning a single member of that sinister cabal? Ask virtually anyone about religious extremists and dozens of examples come readily to mind.

A request (which you will no doubt reject): next time you pass judgement on a subset of scientists please make sure they're more than a figment of your imagination.

Deut, let's simplify this:

WHERE SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH THE BIBLE --- SCIENCE IS WRONG

And if a scientists publishes ANYTHING that is directly contrary to the Word of God, it's not worth the paper it was published on. How does that sound?

 

[Ryan2065]

WHERE SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH THE BIBLE --- SCIENCE IS WRONG

Hehe, oh my... Apparently the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth!!!

And if a scientists publishes ANYTHING that is directly contrary to the Word of God, it's not worth the paper it was published on. How does that sound?

That christian schooling is coming out again!!!

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*grabs a nearby colander, uses it as a helmet, and hides under the closet table*

 

[michel]

Hehe, oh my... Apparently the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth!!!

Where "apparently" is the Earth flat in the Bible, and where in the Bible does it say the sun orbits the earth?

The sun orbiting the Earth was one of Aristotle's "discoveries" --- contrary to Scripture.

 

[michel]

*grabs a nearby colander, uses it as a helmet, and hides under the closet table*

LOL, Feathers! It ain't THAT bad!

 

[Ryan2065]

Where "apparently" is the Earth flat in the Bible, and where in the Bible does it say the sun orbits the earth?

There are many passages where the bible refers to the earth as a circle (flat) and NOT a sphere (not flat) even though they did have a word for sphere. =) Or are we supposed to just interpret that they really meant sphere!

 

[Sunstone]

WHERE SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH THE BIBLE --- SCIENCE IS WRONG

We've been through this before, AV, and you were unable to offer any convincing evidence for your claim that "where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong."

 

[Feathers in Hair]

LOL, Feathers! It ain't THAT bad!

Oops! I hope you didn't think I was referring to your comment. I was actually just anticipating the reaction it might get.

 

[michel]

Oops! I hope you didn't think I was referring to your comment. I was actually just anticipating the reaction it might get.

I know whatcha meant.

 

[michel]

We've been through this before, AV, and you were unable to offer any convincing evidence for your claim that "where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong."

MARK1615 gave an excellent post, which I took a screen print of. I offer some of it here:

Science = there were four elements --- earth, air, fire, water
Bible = creation is made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3)

Science = air has no weight
Bible = air has weight - (Job 28:25)

Science = there were only 1100 stars
Bible = there are innumerable stars - (Jeremiah 33:22)

I hope this helps.