Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The amount of ignorance displayed toward both religion and science constantly amazes me.

I would like to point out that both of our posts were actually very clear, and not particularly offensive in any way.

If you take offense to a calm conversation (something we rarely have on here given this subject's "personal" nature), and a very concise explanation following... well, I would think that is a personal thing, rather than one based in your religious/scientific beliefs.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Here is an interesting clip with Thunderf00t, interesting guy, and he caught me off guard with his delivery (style really, and a good amount of it) on more than one occasion.
The whole interview/debate is rather good, but it is quite long. Worth the watch I would say.

its kinda like watching a college professor lecture a 4 year old who believes in fairy tales...

when it comes down to it... here is the flowcharts that kinda show what their arguments are based on...

To me, your graphs are extremely flawed since there are differences in what constitutes credible evidence to any person in question.

Lawyers and scientists both make bank on assembling or discrediting evidence.
For me, there is a great deal of evidence to prove God's existence.

1N B3f0r3 Ta L0ck!

Relapse wrote:To me, your graphs are extremely flawed since there are differences in what constitutes credible evidence to any person in question.

Your definition of faith seems to vary a great deal from mine. To be entirely fair here though, you can take the road of "What is evidence", or more clearly, "What do you define as such?".

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith wrote:...(n)faith, trust (complete confidence in a person or plan etc) "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

This is not to say that you cannot have both faith and science to a degree, but that is one awfully hard lot to juggle.\

Lord-Loss wrote:1N B3f0r3 Ta L0ck!

Not entirely necessary, I do not see a reason to shut the thread down all of a sudden. There is no flame war here.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Relapse wrote:To me, your graphs are extremely flawed since there are differences in what constitutes credible evidence to any person in question.

Your definition of faith seems to vary a great deal from mine.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith wrote:...(n)faith, trust (complete confidence in a person or plan etc) "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

This is not to say that you cannot have both faith and science to a degree, but that is one awfully hard lot to juggle.\

Lord-Loss wrote:1N B3f0r3 Ta L0ck!

Not entirely necessary, I do not see a reason to shut the thread down all of a sudden. There is no flame war here.

Seriously, this has been one interesting thread so far.

To be entirely fair here though, you can take the road of "What is evidence", or more clearly, "What do you define as sufficient evidence?". More or less.

Meant to add that here...

Wrex wrote:Your definition of faith seems to vary a great deal from mine...

Wrex needs to learn to make his points, and clarify BEFORE editing .

Wrexasaur wrote:

Relapse wrote:To me, your graphs are extremely flawed since there are differences in what constitutes credible evidence to any person in question.

Your definition of faith seems to vary a great deal from mine. To be entirely fair here though, you can take the road of "What is evidence", or more clearly, "What do you define as such?".

A fair question. What I construe as evidence might be dismissed by someone else,ie. feelings, agreement with what I read in scripture, changes in my life for the better when I started living according to a code of religious ethics. The fact that we are here at all and what my faith teaches me that squares with our purpose here is more evidence to me as well as the orginization and way my religion is run.

Is that evidence in the classical sensewith hard facts and figures? Not really but the results of living the tenants of that faith are clear to me.

I find evidence of God, or what have you, in many things and this comfort does help somewhat. As you said though, what is for one, may not be so for another.

The results of hard work are present indeed, and I would be a fool to say that religion does not continue to benefit a large portion of humanity. When I look at the relative "youth" of Science in comparison to Religion (faith really), and compare the amount of good done by either, I do see a rather exponential growth in the effectiveness of Science; but in comparison to Faith, there is a bit of a seniority situation.

There are monks that I would consider more scientific than many scientists, but comparing the two on an individual level lacks any impact. I do think that is because the individual experience is one that may never be fully understood, if not for it's vast complexity, surely for it's lack of a pre-conceived form.

I have absolutely no way of knowing that a person is actually anything until they tell me so. I can theorize, and even with "their" information, finding a solid ground to work from together is nigh impossible. Stable is a natural place to be, but when you get deep into another persons "mind", solid is not even achievable.

The lack of a thought without a thought is not but a thought at all...

Wrexasaur wrote:I find evidence of God, or what have you, in many things and this comfort does help somewhat. As you said though, what is for one, may not be so for another.

The results of hard work are present indeed, and I would be a fool to say that religion does not continue to benefit a large portion of humanity. When I look at the relative "youth" of Science in comparison to Religion (faith really), and compare the amount of good done by either, I do see a rather exponential growth in the effectiveness of Science; but in comparison to Faith, there is a bit of a seniority situation.

There are monks that I would consider more scientific than many scientists, but comparing the two on an individual level lacks any impact. I do think that is because the individual experience is one that may never be fully understood, if not for it's vast complexity, surely for it's lack of a pre-conceived form.

I think science has been around as long as religion, though. In my view, it was science just learning to make fire under different circumstances, learn what berries wouldn't be poison, herd animals, etc. The scientific method had to be applied in all of those situations. True, it might have been crude by our standards, but for then I think it was as revolutionary and cutting edge as space travel.

I would tend to corral that kind of crude science into faith, mainly because it took so much to get there, and eat that berry .

Science has been extremely crude for a very long time, whereas logic (Which in essence is crude science, though to what degree is debatable. Perhaps scientific method vs. faith based method would frame this well.) has been a function of man for our entire civilized history.

Rock smash, fire burn, meat good... wait... Rock smash meat, furn burn meat, meat taste better... not kill so much anymore. Not exactly science, but certainly logic.

Wrexasaur wrote:I would tend to corral that kind of crude science into faith, mainly because it took so much to get there, and eat that berry .

Science has been extremely crude for a very long time, whereas logic (Which in essence is crude science, though to what degree is debatable. Perhaps scientific method vs. faith based method would frame this well.) has been a function of man for our entire civilized history.

Rock smash, fire burn, meat good... wait... Rock smash meat, furn burn meat, meat taste better... not kill so much anymore. Not exactly science, but certainly logic.

But if someone used the method of observation to watch animals eat different berries and do well on it, does that not stray into science? Noticing that cooked meat lasts longer would lead to experiments in making jerky eventually. These discovories progressively pile one on top of the other, accelorating the learning curve and scientific method.

I have to leave now, but I hope to continue this later.

Wrexasaur wrote:This is not to say that you cannot have both faith and science to a degree, but that is one awfully hard lot to juggle.

That seems like a rash thing to say. I have met plenty of scientists who have a devout faith in God. How can you say that one is mutually exclusive to another, especially if you reach a certain point? For example, my best friend's father is literally a rocket scientist who works for Boeing, and is heavily involved in the NASA shuttle launches. He is undoubtedly one of the most devout Christians I have ever met. Unless I am reading your post wrong you are stating that : only the less educated and simplistic are religious, people who are smarter and know more shouldn't can't believe in God. That is both incredibly arrogant and offensive to people who are educated, because you are in essence demeaning their intellect, not to mention the elitism that your argument reeks of toward those who haven't had the benefit of higher education.

A fair question. What I construe as evidence might be dismissed by someone else,ie. feelings, agreement with what I read in scripture, changes in my life for the better when I started living according to a code of religious ethics. The fact that we are here at all and what my faith teaches me that squares with our purpose here is more evidence to me as well as the orginization and way my religion is run.

Is that evidence in the classical sensewith hard facts and figures? Not really but the results of living the tenants of that faith are clear to me.

This to me, is the danger of faith.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:This is not to say that you cannot have both faith and science to a degree, but that is one awfully hard lot to juggle.

That seems like a rash thing to say. I have met plenty of scientists who have a devout faith in God. How can you say that one is mutually exclusive to another, especially if you reach a certain point? For example, my best friend's father is literally a rocket scientist who works for Boeing, and is heavily involved in the NASA shuttle launches. He is undoubtedly one of the most devout Christians I have ever met. Unless I am reading your post wrong you are stating that : only the less educated and simplistic are religious, people who are smarter and know more shouldn't can't believe in God. That is both incredibly arrogant and offensive to people who are educated, because you are in essence demeaning their intellect, not to mention the elitism that your argument reeks of toward those who haven't had the benefit of higher education.

JEB a very good point. At my Church we have a few PhD's and one of them is a physicist that studies/teaches astronomy at Virginia Tech. He is a very devout Christian yet, unlike frigs, he is able to balance both his religion and science. The guy is quite literally one of the most brilliant people on earth.

I would really like to see frigs come up with an original thought, besides copying and pasting what other sceptics have done.

Frankly.... some athiests are just as guilty as being sheeple as some religious people are.

GG

Ah, the OT Forum...

...where people often forget that ALL of the rules of Dakka Dakka still apply.

Namely, debate the points in question, do NOT attack the users personally.

Seriously... you have all been warned.

edit, mod saw it and said something first

I'm not sure why so many people took offense to the flowchart

"its kinda like watching a college professor lecture a 4 year old who believes in fairy tales...

when it comes down to it... here is the flowcharts that kinda show what their arguments are based on... "

it pretty much is his argument and if you look at the arguments of both people that is pretty much what is going on.

The guy Thunderf00t argues with is lacking in knowledge of any kind. I personally would love to see professor Behe of Lehigh University (writer of darwins little black box) debate with Thunderf00t...

turns out protocells bond readily with other organic compounds, since at that point they are very few molecules at all in the grand scheme of things... and the evolution of flagellum has already been explained (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html). It just needs to be tested in a lab.

meh.

I hope this thread doesn't get locked. As much as I disagree with some of the views here, I've gained a lot of respect for those I disagree with because of this thread. I took no offense to the chart, but I disagree with it.

Relapse wrote:I hope this thread doesn't get locked. As much as I disagree with some of the views here, I've gained a lot of respect for those I disagree with because of this thread. I took no offense to the chart, but I disagree with it.

It's just a matter of time before it gets locked. We've had a couple of other threads on religion, some of them that went on for dozens of pages. Invariably someone that doesn't take the time to read the entire thread will "jump in" with an offensive post and get it locked. It's just the nature of the internet.

GG

generalgrog wrote:JEB a very good point. At my Church we have a few PhD's and one of them is a physicist that studies/teaches astronomy at Virginia Tech. He is a very devout Christian yet, unlike frigs, he is able to balance both his religion and science. The guy is quite literally one of the most brilliant people on earth.

I think astronomy has one of the highest percentages of religious belief. Not just among scientists, among all careers. Probably gets beaten out by, like, Pastors, but not much else. It makes sense, you spend all that time looking at the heavens, you’re likely to take on some kind of spiritualism.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:JEB a very good point. At my Church we have a few PhD's and one of them is a physicist that studies/teaches astronomy at Virginia Tech. He is a very devout Christian yet, unlike frigs, he is able to balance both his religion and science. The guy is quite literally one of the most brilliant people on earth.

I think astronomy has one of the highest percentages of religious belief. Not just among scientists, among all careers. Probably gets beaten out by, like, Pastors, but not much else. It makes sense, you spend all that time looking at the heavens, you’re likely to take on some kind of spiritualism.

Its ironic that people would then equate knowledge with disbelief in a personal God. I don't understand why there is this false barrier that says, "Right then, all of you lads who believe in God you get over there. And all of you who are smarter then them you get over there. Very good, now everyone is separated quite nicely. Wait, whats this!?!? You say you believe in God AND you are a smart and proper scientist? Hmmm, Gerald! Fetch a saw and cut him an armhole in this fence, that way he is kind of in both camps!"

I think much of the confusion arises from the fact that religion, in general, isn't something one commonly studies actively. So you get theoretical physicists who can do multivariate calculus without any serious effort, while lacking any understanding of the difference between religion and theism. Obviously the inverse is also true in that most theologians can't do calculus, but their inability to perform in that regard functionally prevents them from making any claim to mathematical knowledge; whereas anyone who speaks English will have at least a vague notion of what the word religion means (even if that notion has little to do with reality).

I am a bit perplexed at the direction that this has taken, but forward and upwards.

People are people, and in essence, none is much different than another. What does separate them however, is (in general) their understanding of the world.

What I would ask of a scientist that believed in God, would be no different in anyway to that I would ask of a person who is not of such an educated "stature". This, is all I would ask, and furthermore, no less should be asked, out of clear and common sense.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Its ironic that people would then equate knowledge with disbelief in a personal God. I don't understand why there is this false barrier that says, "Right then, all of you lads who believe in God you get over there. And all of you who are smarter then them you get over there. Very good, now everyone is separated quite nicely. Wait, whats this!?!? You say you believe in God AND you are a smart and proper scientist? Hmmm, Gerald! Fetch a saw and cut him an armhole in this fence, that way he is kind of in both camps!"

Declaring oneself part of the 'rational, scientific community' and thinking that suddenly gives you greater knowledge seems to me very strangely similar to the people who thinking being Christian automatically makes you more moral.

In both cases it's just a cheap way to claim superiority without doing the hard work needed to actually be more knowledgeable or more moral.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I think much of the confusion arises from the fact that religion, in general, isn't something one commonly studies actively. So you get theoretical physicists who can do multivariate calculus without any serious effort, while lacking any understanding of the difference between religion and theism. Obviously the inverse is also true in that most theologians can't do calculus, but their inability to perform in that regard functionally prevents them from making any claim to mathematical knowledge; whereas anyone who speaks English will have at least a vague notion of what the word religion means (even if that notion has little to do with reality).

It's weirder when you look at a guy like Dawkins. There were a lot of numpties out there spouting drivel about evolution, armed with no knowledge on the subject at all, just a firm commitment that evolution was wrong. Dawkins, an excellent evolutionary biologist, got understandably frustrated and addressed many of the more common creationist claims.

But then he went on, and started attacking religion. Now, despite being a very clever man, Dawkins has no theological training, and his lack of scholarship really shows. All of a sudden he was the guy writing books attacking a field of research he didn't really understand.

sebster wrote:Declaring oneself part of the 'rational, scientific community' and thinking that suddenly gives you greater knowledge seems to me very strangely similar to the people who thinking being Christian automatically makes you more moral.

In both cases it's just a cheap way to claim superiority without doing the hard work needed to actually be more knowledgeable or more moral.

I completely agree. I am tired of the assumption that Christian=Superior that is found so often in the Church. As a devout Christian I maintain that humility, not arrogance, is one of the key factors that is essential to our faith. I do not presume to judge people on whether they go to Heaven or Hell, whether they are immoral or not, etc. That is between them and God, and that is the way it should be. I know plenty of immoral Christians and plenty of moral Atheists. Morality is never exclusive to religious people, but neither is knowledge exclusive to those of a less religious persuasion. My own meager attempts at acquiring knowledge are done out of pure enjoyment, not a drive to prove anything, and I find it to be completely compatible with faith.

sebster wrote:But then he went on, and started attacking religion. Now, despite being a very clever man, Dawkins has no theological training, and his lack of scholarship really shows. All of a sudden he was the guy writing books attacking a field of research he didn't really understand.

As always sebster you point out how the problem swings both ways.

sebster wrote:
But then he went on, and started attacking religion. Now, despite being a very clever man, Dawkins has no theological training, and his lack of scholarship really shows. All of a sudden he was the guy writing books attacking a field of research he didn't really understand.

Dicky...angers me. I can excuse people like Hitchens and Harris (though Harris' level of stupidity is quite amazing), but Dawkins really gets under my skin. Probably because his scientific credentials tend to artificially inflate his credibility (I have a similar opinion of Chomsky, so that's not overly surprising). Watching otherwise rational people dismiss knowledge as irrelevant because they feel it pertains to something lacking in veracity is really quite illuminating; especially with regard to the religious tendencies of scientists as a whole.

Relapse wrote:But if someone used the method of observation to watch animals eat different berries and do well on it, does that not stray into science? Noticing that cooked meat lasts longer would lead to experiments in making jerky eventually. These discovories progressively pile one on top of the other, accelorating the learning curve and scientific method.

I have to leave now, but I hope to continue this later.

Very true, and I wonder to what extent this was the case. We see a very strong pattern and we tend to take that information as literal. This is not to say that all patterns are so simple, but moving along.

In many ways the scientific method has been around long since humankind. You can see it in all facets of life regardless of your perspective on religion and what have you. At what point does science become itself though? This is a bit of a contrived question, mainly due to the fact that the subject itself is based on a variable that can take many forms. This, however, is simply not the case for faith; and in many ways, that is where it's strength lies.

When you compare the two "modes of thought/ ultimate meaning in the box", there is an obvious gap between the two. What I find to be interesting, is the fact that the gap is seemingly variant by many means. You can be different because of x,y, and zed; but what could these differences actually entail? How do these differences mean anything for that matter? Could it be that the difference is what brings truth to the form? The sandwich is of no form until the process is complete.

In this difference, I see a similarity, roughly taking the shape of stubbornness (on both sides most often), precisely taking the form of misunderstanding. I would be hard pressed to call many things science, but most often than not, trial and error is the core of such an endeavor. With these mistakes and misunderstandings, you can draw parallels that were not clear before. With the parallels that you can draw from this, you can create the basis for an entirely new view, or perspective to be precise.

I bring you science AND religion:

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.

Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."

dogma wrote:Dicky...angers me. I can excuse people like Hitchens and Harris (though Harris' level of stupidity is quite amazing), but Dawkins really gets under my skin. Probably because his scientific credentials tend to artificially inflate his credibility (I have a similar opinion of Chomsky, so that's not overly surprising). Watching otherwise rational people dismiss knowledge as irrelevant because they feel it pertains to something lacking in veracity is really quite illuminating; especially with regard to the religious tendencies of scientists as a whole.

I once heard of Hitchens described as 'reliably silly', which sums up just about everything that needs to be summed up about him. I haven't read Harris, and from what I've heard I haven't wanted to - if I wanted to sink my time into reading crap, I'd pick more famous crap.

But I don't mind Chomsky. I don't agree with all his points, and agree with almost none of his conclusions, but he challenges my views sometimes. And it doesn't make me as angry reading his stuff, because everyone knows Chomsky is a wingnut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I bring you science AND religion:

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

It's a great story, but unfortunately not true. snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp) dates the story back to a humour piece from the 1920s that argued heaven was hotter than hell.

Still funny, though.

I think the science versus faith debate really comes down to religion. When religious dogma conflicts with proven science, very often religion will cling to its dogma for fear of being proven wrong and thus having other tenants questioned, which loosens their control over the flock. This is when you get into "the dangers of faith," but really it's the danger of faith in a religion, not "faith" in its purest form.

Also, it's important to separate an ignorant person with faith and an educated person with faith. An ignorant person with faith may not believe in evolution because the Church says the world was created in a different way than what science suggests. An educated person with faith may understand the Big Bang theory and evolution, but have faith that somehow God played a hand in setting all of that into motion.