E vs C

[CyranoAH]

I thought I'd bring a little humor to this conversation

Daniel

[StSanta]

HBlair, you'll readily accept current theorieson aerodynamics or flight related physics, yet when equally well supported science is presented, you say it's equal to faith.

I ain't gonna get in between you and your spiritual belief, but when ya call evolution another fancy faith and all the hard work that's been done in biology for hogwash, I sort of think you're mistaken.

[Kieran]

Even though the 'figure of speech' Bible defense is getting worn.

Are you suggesting new explanations should be invented for entertainment value? Hey, this isn't a new argument- it's a sure bet the material has been covered thousands of times before we were even born.  

I'll never "prove" to you there is a God; first, your mind is set against it to begin with, and; I don't happen to believe it is within any human's power to "prove" He exists anyway. If it was possible, what would be the point of faith?

As to the point Hblair is making, try this; draw me a picture of a subatomic particle. What, you can't? Why? Because there is no microscope powerful enough to see one. The best we can do is theorize, test, and use the results we receive to come to a conclusion- yet that conclusion is still not conclusive proof. At some point a leap of faith must be made. Now you might argue that leap is small, and I might agree; still, you've decided what evidence to keep and what evidence to disregard as meaningless as you've moved along.

Religion does no less- though most of the evidence comes from ancient writings from various cultures. There are certainly gaps, and there are certainly instances where a leap of faith has to be made.

[midnight Target]

The job of science, or any form of skeptical inquiry is not to determine the "truth", but to increase or reduce the probability that a certain hypothesis explains a phenomenon.
The level of faith required to believe a thing varies according to the evidence. Everything requires some level of faith. The real key to the scientific method is not the absence of faith, it is the presence of the skeptical inquiry.
Religion on the other hand is based on faith, and by definition frowns upon skeptical inquiry (see Doubting Thomas).
This is the main reason for my personal opposition to "Creation Science". How can a field of scientific inquiry be established with a conclusion that cannot be questioned?

[StSanta]

Kieran, I believe the difference between faith and justifiable belief is rather large.

YMMV of course.

[Kieran]

Define "justifiable belief".

I merely suggest you are far more likely to be sympathetic to faith in your field, even though at its root it is just as much a leap of logic as anything in religion.

MT, can't argue with your view of the relative immobility of the church vs. the transient nature of scientific beliefs. OTOH, it can be argued the fact scientific beliefs do regularly change, their basis in "fact" was flawed from the beginning. This in turn can be argued as evidence science is at least as flawed as religion as far as understanding evolution or creation.

[Gunthr]

Evolution has stopped.

Natural Selection near human habitations just isn't operating.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
Define "justifiable belief".

I merely suggest you are far more likely to be sympathetic to faith in your field, even though at its root it is just as much a leap of logic as anything in religion.

MT, can't argue with your view of the relative immobility of the church vs. the transient nature of scientific beliefs. OTOH, it can be argued the fact scientific beliefs do regularly change, their basis in "fact" was flawed from the beginning. This in turn can be argued as evidence science is at least as flawed as religion as far as understanding evolution or creation.

Sorry Kieran, but your "leap of logic" statement just isn't true. Any part of any scientific explanation can and should be questioned. If you are not satisfied with an answer then choose an alternative hypothesis and try to find the evidence that supports it. No "Leap" is needed and no "Faith" is demanded. If you need more convincing of a fact then seek it out. When the level of "Faith" is as small as possible, then the conclusion can usually be called a truth, or a fact.
As to the scientific method being flawed because of the transient nature of conclusions over the years, I can only say bravo. When has a religion ever happily said "we were wrong about that" based on an inquiry process that was an integral part of that religion? Never happened, never will.

[Kieran]

I won't argue scientific reasoning has as its purpose a continual search for evolving truth; that should be tacitly obvious. I won't argue religion isn't staunch in its intractibility to change. What I am comparing is the methodology for coming to conclusions in both arenas.

Science uses evidence to narrow down possibilites, then goes with the best guess. Religion proof is based on ancient writings and recorded history of various cultures, compared for similarities and discrepancies. Both science and religion pick and choose what evidence is relevant, discarding what is felt to be irrelevant. Both pursuits inevitably come to a place where a conclusion must be drawn.

You are ready to believe in quarks because there is evidence to support their existance- yet it is quite possible the evidence may be the result of another natural phenomena outside what we know. Until such time this evidence might be found, you will be prepared to slap me upside my head with my ignorance- only to be later found to be incorrect. Oops.

Sure, there are plenty of zealots who do the same with religion, we all know that. And surely you must recognize there is much disagreement not only amongst the different religions, but within specific religions themselves. That conflict almost universally revolves around the interpretation of the Word or the significance of such interpretations. This leads the theologists to study the history of the time of the writing, apply the words to the timeperiod, extrapolate meanings from that timeframe, etc. I guess what I am saying is there is plenty of debate within religious circles over what is to be accepted and what isn't, and the process is scientific. The one specific point that cannot be disproven (within the religious debate) is the existance of God- everything else is open to discussion. Taken this way, religion is only marginally less absolute than science.

[Charon]

I like Jack Chick’s take on the issue, particularly where he proves that gluons don’t exist, and that atoms are held together by Christ’s hands.
Big Daddy

Of course, there is a lot more good reading at the site, covering everything from the falseness of all other religions and outlandish Christian sects like Catholicism (responsible for the Holocaust you know), a neat take on homosexuality and an even neater one on Rock n Roll (he did get the record company exec down pat): A Plethora of Fun @Tract Catalog

Charon

And for a Chick counterpoint, try Spacemoose. Antlers of the Dammed  The strip stirred up quite a bit of controversy, and even a letter of protest from the campus ministries, most of whom Chick and his hard core evangelical Protestant peers would regard as sinners doomed to hell preaching false religions. For fans of Irony Spacemoose was more than just a vulgar display of cartoon art, it was a vulgar display of cartoon art with a purpose

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
I won't argue scientific reasoning has as its purpose a continual search for evolving truth; that should be tacitly obvious. I won't argue religion isn't staunch in its intractibility to change. What I am comparing is the methodology for coming to conclusions in both arenas.

Fair enough

Science uses evidence to narrow down possibilites, then goes with the best guess. Religion proof is based on ancient writings and recorded history of various cultures, compared for similarities and discrepancies. Both science and religion pick and choose what evidence is relevant, discarding what is felt to be irrelevant. Both pursuits inevitably come to a place where a conclusion must be drawn.

First of all, science actually makes the "best guess" then tries to narrow the possible answers to one. But that is a trivial difference. I think you are missing the main point though, even if you stated it in your opening paragraph. The evidence a religion chooses as relevant CANNOT disprove the basic tenants of that religion. Science OTOH has no such qualms.

You are ready to believe in quarks because there is evidence to support their existance- yet it is quite possible the evidence may be the result of another natural phenomena outside what we know. Until such time this evidence might be found, you will be prepared to slap me upside my head with my ignorance- only to be later found to be incorrect. Oops.

Sadly this has been true. People will often call something a fact when it is based upon only speculative evidence. Evolution based on natural selection is not based upon such evidence.

Sure, there are plenty of zealots who do the same with religion, we all know that. And surely you must recognize there is much disagreement not only amongst the different religions, but within specific religions themselves. That conflict almost universally revolves around the interpretation of the Word or the significance of such interpretations. This leads the theologists to study the history of the time of the writing, apply the words to the timeperiod, extrapolate meanings from that timeframe, etc. I guess what I am saying is there is plenty of debate within religious circles over what is to be accepted and what isn't, and the process is scientific. The one specific point that cannot be disproven (within the religious debate) is the existance of God- everything else is open to discussion. Taken this way, religion is only marginally less absolute than science.

Taken that way I would probably be interested in joining such a religion. I don't think there is a religion in existence today with that type of open-mindedness. For instance:
"The only path to heaven is through Jesus" (paraphrased, but I think that is accurate) Is this open for experimentation? Is it provable? Is is repeatable? .....of course not. Religious scholars may be able to test or verify that this was said, but what if no other evidence exists for this statement than the Bible? There is plenty of evidence that other religions feel differently. There are actually more people that feel this statement is wrong than feel it is correct. That doesn't prove that it is wrong, just an irrelevant fact. Where does the weight of evidence fall on a question like this?

 

[Kieran]

Good points, but consider this; science cannot disprove Jesus is the only way to heaven, that heaven exists, or that there is a God. Therefore science must consider the possibility God exists.

Of course the way to definitively prove this right or wrong is to die- many have tried this, but they ain't talkin'.

Edit: I should also clarify I am not speaking for any particular religion. I am discussing this from a purely scientific vs. religious perspective.

[samu1]

Guys Guys, you really need to chill out on this issue . The simple fact of the matter is that neither of you will be able to prove your belief's/theory's. It is one of those questions that will only have an answer at the of the world (that is if you believe that it will end like that). I personally go for the Biblical creation view (Not sure whether or not genesis is symbolical or not, but don't really care either), but i don't have all day to list the reasons. And remember, how we got here isn't important, we're here already, its what we do with today that matters .

[midnight Target]

Sorry Samu1, but I contend that there IS sufficient proof to explain the diversity and origin of life by strict scientific means, reducing the "faith factor" to such a degree that it can reliably be called a fact.
Saying we can never be sure is just silly. Why do you think God gave us brains for Krise sakes?!;)

[Kieran]

Samu1, if you think we are angry, you're wrong. We are merely debating the point-counterpoint. Of course we believe what we believe, but both of us know our respective sides expect us to challenge our thinking. There is nothing wrong with debate in this fashion, and as long as I have a few moments here and there to discuss the issue I have no problem listening to an opposing viewpoint. In fact, if I am to ever learn anything new or understand the other side I have to hear and experience that viewpoint.

I don't let the fact MT is wrong get in the way...