E vs C

[Gunthr]

An aside on religeon and science:

As a teenager, I was in love with science. I really stuggled with my belief in God during this time. I prayed earnestly for some sign from God, but sadly, it never came. Or at least, not in the way I would immediately recognise it.

One Sunday I was standing in the vestibule in back of Church during Mass. I was only there to pick up a church bulletin to prove to my parents that I had been to Mass. There I saw our family doctor standing back there listening to the sermon from the back vestibule doorway. I was tip-toeing out the door and he saw me and winked at me. I then decided to stand there until Mass was over, because I didn't want him to see me leaving early. When the collection basket came around, he put a $50 dollar bill in it.

I was so in awe of this man. He was not only our family doctor, who had eventually delivered every one of the eight kids in my family, but he was also the Chief of Thoracic Surgery at the regional hospital.

I don't know if this was my sign or not, but I've often thought about the devoutness of this man of science, apparently untroubled by the seemingly conflicting beliefs between science and religeon. I never forgot that.

[midnight Target]

Almost got me there huh?

Evolution did happen.

I am convinced of that fact because of the study i have put into it, as are over 98% of the trained Biologists in the world today. Evolutionary Theory refers to the method(s) by which evolution occurred. No faith involved. If a better solution were to be brought forth, I would happily recant that statement.

Reverand? Weren't you the one ragging on Amon to get a spell checker?

[hblair]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Almost got me there huh?

Evolution did happen.

Your faith is strong, unfortunately you can't prove it as fact.

Originally posted by midnight Target

I am convinced of that fact because of the study i have put into it, as are over 98% of the trained Biologists in the world today.

98% eh? Who polled all the trained biologists in the world anyway?

Originally posted by midnight Target

Reverand? Weren't you the one ragging on Amon to get a spell checker?

Can't win 'em all. You knew what I meant though didn't ya?

[Kieran]

Nope nope nope! Science is a method of study. It is the way to question our environment and all answers are open for question or change. In the example of "creation science" the hypothesis is always "God did it". That cannot be questioned, it is a matter of faith. That is precisely why it isn't science.

You're picking nits. My point is you can call the study of religion science by your own definition:

Science is a method of study. It is the way to question our environment and all answers are open for question or change.

Put "social" in front of environment, and religion fits. You take one example, creation science, and conclude it cannot be science because you assume the study would always be done by religious people. A person from a pure scientific bias might conduct the research and attempt to prove or disprove such a tenet, might search for the origins of beliefs and link them to real-world causes, therefore placing the study in science.

It isn't a unique way of defining science- it's simply outside the narrow view you have of it. Science is also the systematic study of a particular event, discipline, or natural occurance. It is the gathering of all evidence and data needed to synthesize information necessary to gain a better view of the studied subject.

Are you aware scientific explanations of religious events don't necessarily fall outside of faith? Take the 10 plagues of Egypt; if you gave scientific explanations for what happened I could believe them and be ok with that- of course with the understanding God brought those physical events about.

Believe it or not, I am not the person with the narrowest view here.

[mrfish]

that's too bad when your argument digresses to digs on someones spelling.

typically pious though.

[hblair]

Yes, it's all Targets and Am0ns fault. Buncha evolutionist montsters out to get me!

Mrfish, lose the frowny face chum.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by mrfish
that's too bad when your argument digresses to digs on someones spelling.

typically pious though.

Too bad when your argument digresses to stereotypes, diatribes, and insults of the intelligence of those holding an opposing viewpoint.

Typical for you, though.

[midnight Target]

I'm not picking nits, you are avoiding the real issue. Of course you can study religion scientifically. What you cannot do is study science religiously.
Creation studied scientifically must be open to the possibility that "God did it" might be wrong. I don't think religious scientists would be willing to go that far.

hblair:
There are really no absolutes and all "facts" are subject to question. Facts in science simply are views or rules with a very high probability of being correct. When I say evolution is a fact that is what i mean....high probability of being correct, very high.

The study of religion is NOT A PROBLEM! It has been the focus of almost all human activities since writing was developed. It is irrevocably tied up in our history and deserves study. The only concern with religious study is that it might turn into religious cheerleading, and care should be taken to avoid that eventuality.

You are an educator Kieran, and I salute you for that. My view of "science" is based on the scientific method. That isn't narrow, it is well defined and I bet you have used it over the years to run science fairs etc.

1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.

Thats my view...is it narrow? I don't think so.

[midnight Target]

hblair:

I was joking about the spell checker thing....just my stupid way of trying to lighten things up a little. My ability to spell is limited so I am not one to preach.
I thought Mrfish was talking about me there.

[Kieran]

Those steps are precisely correct in the context of proving an hypothesis, I don't disagree at all. And, I don't disagree that a religious scientist will face the contradictions of facts vs. belief. What you may not realize is it is quite possible to do so. A religious scientist can arrive at the same conclusions about the creation of the universe, with the exception of there being one step removed- God caused (fill in the blank) to start the process in motion. In every other respect the research yields the same results.

You see, no matter where you go with it (creation by nature) you wind up at the same source- something from nothing. That is against the physical laws of the universe as we understand them. Whatever exists had to originate somehow, derived from something. Am I wrong? Isn't this the basis of the "Big-Bang" and similar theories?

So there's your conundrum- instant something from nothing. And how do you prove it? What explanation does science give us for something from nothingness? That something always existed? Doesn't that defy understanding? Aren't we forced to believe that on faith if we cannot believe in creation by God?

[midnight Target]

You are absolutely right Kieran. We eventually hit a wall. What I contend is that we should always look for the way over the next wall, and never just "lay it on the lap of God".
If the wall is the "Big Bang", or even the unexplainable beginnings of a constantly expanding and contracting Universe, it is still a long way removed from Evolution through natural selection as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. The "Wall" has been pushed further and further back by science.....when should we stop looking?

[gavor]

The problem I have with religion is the number of different ones. Each believes their religion is THE religion. Even within each religion there are various sub-groups and each of these has a different interpretation of that religion. The common theme in religion is a god(or gods), but all these gods are different(except the islam god, they believe in the same god as christians). So how is a non-religious man to choose which religion is right, if indeed any are?

I'm not a rabid follower of science either, science makes a lot of promises that never come to pass. They denounce things as impossible that are then solved 5 years later. Science cant explain everything, but in general scientists agree with each other. And they can produce proof of what they are saying.

Sorry i'm straying a little off the current points, just ironing out my thoughts before I wade in .

[gavor]

What, dont tell me it's a compromise?! Looks like i may have missed it all!

[midnight Target]

After 200+ posts Gavor......compromise?

[gavor]

Ya . Wish i'd joined in sooner.