Religous Debate- Need input....

[losman]

In debating with some religous folk I got into a discussion of what is sceince and what is religion, these 2 arguments were thrown at me and I was asked to explain them and how could I accept these concepts without treating them as a religion.....

--------------------------------------------------


Following are two quotes. One is taken from a high school science textbook, the other from an article in Scientific American. Are these quotes examples of science, or religion? Can they be tested?

quote:“If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.”

-- HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362.



quote:“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”

-- Alan Gurth, P. Stelnhardt Scientific American, May 1984. page 128.

 

[geetarmoore]

This is what we know about our universe in 150 years of study and research. Every year, we know more. There is no required 'faith' that these are the right answers, there is only the idea that these are the best answers we have today, based on 150 years of scientific development.

If it is impossible that the universe started from nothing and needed a creator.. Then who created that creator, and how does one explain that the creator came from nothing?

(BTW - no one REALLY believes that the universe started from nothing. The idea is all matter was condensed down to a softball size mass, and microseconds in to the big bang, an inflationary event happened causing the universe to expand exponentially)

 

[Dr Adequate]

“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”

This is, as the authors point out, merely a "speculation". If they believed it, without evidence, that would be like religion. Speculating about the unknown and saying that it's pure speculation is very unlike religion, which raises whimsical speculations about the unknown to the status of Absolute Unquestionable Truth.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.”

This is clearly a crummy textbook. They say themselves: "The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed" and they put in this kooky stuff about the universe starting from "a state of nothingness" and they claim that this is the Big Bang.

 

[meg]

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

So, in essence, we're at the same point there. Their text basically says there was nothing, but God (who came from where and is made of what?) then turned it into something.

I guess, to me, the question is "where do you go from here?"

You can either go with 1) the idea that while we don't know everything yet, we're trying to understand, and that there is a good, logical and proveable explanation for everything.

Or you can go with 2) the idea that it's all explained in one collection of small books that include the idea that serpents can talk and make you eat fruit, bushes burn with flames but are not consumed, entire seas split so people can walk across, everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets, its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are, a boat can hold two of every kind of animal in the world (what *did* they feed the animals?), a person can get eaten by a whale and burped back out and survive, people can get turned into pillars of stone (or was it salt?) just for turning around and looking at a burning city, it's ok to have sex with your dad if get him drunk enough, sometimes, dead people can be made alive again if you just believe enough, water can be turned into wine, its possible to feed hundreds of people with five loaves of bread and a couple fish, and that somehow a rabbi getting horribly tortured and killed makes everything okeydokey for the rest of us, because his body disappeared from his tomb. That all you have to do is believe, and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!), and nothing particularly good will happen to you here, as a matter of fact, you very well might be "tested" with all sorts of trials and tribulations, because who knows the mind of god? but after you die it's gonna be really swell. Really.

Oh. And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

Uh. Okay...

I pick 1.

Meg

 

[Beth]

In the book "quantum questions", the author spends several pages at the beginning defining those terms. I suggest you check out a copy and read the introduction as a way of gaining a better understanding. In particular, he goes in detail regarding two different usages of the word 'spirit' that can easily lead to contradictions and misunderstandings if you're not clear about which meaning is being used.

 

[Vagabond]

You can believe the earth is flat, you can believe the earth is a perfect sphere. Neither is correct, but the second is less wrong than the first. That is how knowledge is gained.

 

[BJQ87]

everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets

its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are

and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!),

And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

you must be reading a different book...it sounds familiar though, just twisted around.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

you must be reading a different book...it sounds familiar though, just twisted around.

Maybe these slight amendments will help:

Verily, everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets

Verily, its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are

Verily, and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!),

Verily, And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

 

[meg]

Actually I did mispeak. Sorry. It was Mt Sinai where the ten commandments were supposed to happen. Not Mt Ararat. Mt Ararat is where the big boat full of all the animals in the world is supposed to have landed.

Meg

 

[David Swidler]

But not the fish.

 

[10001]

Religion And Science

In debating with some religous folk I got into a discussion of what is sceince and what is religion, these 2 arguments were thrown at me and I was asked to explain them and how could I accept these concepts without treating them as a religion.....

--------------------------------------------------


religion and science probably have a common source called philosophy of some sort.

how ever science is growing.
science does not have THE ANSWER. it is a search...
science is fact and proof. Not an answer

religion Has THE ANSWER... to which there are no obviouse proof or fact.
But the Answer is there.. you just have to believe it.

 

[geetarmoore]

science does not have THE ANSWER. it is a search...
science is fact and proof. Not an answer

religion Has THE ANSWER... to which there are no obviouse proof or fact.
But the Answer is there.. you just have to believe it.

Mmmmmm..... Ok.

Your posts are interesting tonight. I was drunk earlier myself, but I didn't post then. I waited till I was more salient.....

Just saying.....

 

[Ducky]

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

So, in essence, we're at the same point there. Their text basically says there was nothing, but God (who came from where and is made of what?) then turned it into something.

I guess, to me, the question is "where do you go from here?"

You can either go with 1) the idea that while we don't know everything yet, we're trying to understand, and that there is a good, logical and proveable explanation for everything.

Or you can go with 2) the idea that it's all explained in one collection of small books that include the idea that serpents can talk and make you eat fruit, bushes burn with flames but are not consumed, entire seas split so people can walk across, everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets, its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are, a boat can hold two of every kind of animal in the world (what *did* they feed the animals?), a person can get eaten by a whale and burped back out and survive, people can get turned into pillars of stone (or was it salt?) just for turning around and looking at a burning city, it's ok to have sex with your dad if get him drunk enough, sometimes, dead people can be made alive again if you just believe enough, water can be turned into wine, its possible to feed hundreds of people with five loaves of bread and a couple fish, and that somehow a rabbi getting horribly tortured and killed makes everything okeydokey for the rest of us, because his body disappeared from his tomb. That all you have to do is believe, and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!), and nothing particularly good will happen to you here, as a matter of fact, you very well might be "tested" with all sorts of trials and tribulations, because who knows the mind of god? but after you die it's gonna be really swell. Really.

Oh. And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

Uh. Okay...

I pick 1.

Meg

You f***ing rock.

 

[SirPhilip]

In debating with some religous folk I got into a discussion of what is sceince and what is religion, these 2 arguments were thrown at me and I was asked to explain them and how could I accept these concepts without treating them as a religion...

The first rule of religious debate is not to debate the religious. The second is not to debate the religion but character. The third is to not hold any constructive intention where there is not - debating someone's faith is always attacking it, and by extension, the foundation of their psychological well-being, no matter how well intentioned the motive. Unless the person is pushing it on others forcefully, I would avoid throwing cold water on them.

Science and religion are seperate topics. Science cannot make moral judgements but faith isn't an objective judgement. You'll waste mental effort on nothing, and it likely will dissolve into the above situation.

 

[geetarmoore]

The first rule of religious debate is not to debate the religious. The second is not to debate the religion but character. The third is to not hold any constructive intention where there is not - debating someone's faith is always attacking it, and by extension, the foundation of their psychological well-being, no matter how well intentioned the motive. Unless the person is pushing it on others forcefully, I would avoid throwing cold water on them.

Who's rules are these?

I'm an evangelical atheist. If someone talks to me about religion or faith, I'm going to whack them around about it with logic and facts. Is it attacking their faith? Yes. Yes, I believe it is.

I’m OK with this, however, if it makes just ONE of them evaluate the historical evidence of their faith.

 

[meg]

Hi losman,

Looking over your opening post again, there is another thought that comes to my mind.

In those "science" quotes there are some very important words:

"However, physicists theorize.." and "It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that..."

And these make all the difference.

Because science is not one statment. Or even one fact. Science is a *method* of looking at our universe and attempting to learn about it. The method requires that we make speculations and theories, then attempt to prove or disprove them. And *then*, we have to show how we proved or disproved them and then other people try to use our methods to prove our disprove the same thing. If many people come up with the same results to the problem, _then_and_only_then_ do we consider a statement "true". And even then, there is always the unsaid caveat at the end of the statement "until a better explanation comes along".

And that is the difference between religion and science. Religion does not attempt to "prove" a devotee's statements. At best, it only looks for verification of if a similar statement has been stated before in the official texts of the faith. Which is not to say that biblical scholars don't argue and make theories about the meaning of texts; they do. But in general, one is not encouraged to question any of the "facts" of the religion. The test of a devotee is that they believe it with no proof or evidence or questioning.

So it's kind of futile to attempt to argue with the religious by looking at any one theory and saying "that's science". Because statements and theories get disproved or amended all the time. If you claim that the one theory is "science" then when it gets disproved, the religious can then claim "see, science was wrong". When actually what it means is that science, as a methodology is *right* and that it's working just the way it's intended.

So, if I were in your debate, and these quotes were handed to me, I guess the only thing I could do would be to explain the whole science is a method thing, and say that it's not possible, really, for us to argue about whether these theories are true or not, because they are in the very beginning stages of going through the scientific method and it is only in the coming years that we will find if they were "proved" or not. At best, these quotes are an example of what some of our best thinkers are thinking about right now. They are *not* statements of fact.


And thank you, fowlsound. That means alot to me. I do strive to "f***ing rock", and I appreciate your noticing.

Meg

 

[losman]

here is latest staement that he keeps hammering....


"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."

 

[geetarmoore]

here is latest staement that he keeps hammering....


"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."

Utter Bullsh*t. They are logic, knowledge and reason based theories that don't rely on the even the smallest sliver of faith. When better and verifiable information comes along, the theories are updated to reflect them.

Anyone who understands scientific method understands this. Of course, religious fundies don't understand science at all....

 

[meg]

"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."

Well, all I can say to that is NOPE. Here are a few quotes that might be able to help your argument.


from religioustolerance.org-site (I can't post urls yet. If you pm me, or if you wait til I post a couple more times, I can add them in)

Science deals with the study of nature, its forces, processes and development. It is based on the analysis of evidence. It assumes, as a working hypothesis, that processes and events happen due to natural causes, not through divine intervention.

Religion, on the other hand,

" deals with matters of faith. Its main basis is often revelation from a deity -- either orally transmitted from generation to generation, recorded in a sacred text, or revealed to individuals through prayer. Most faith groups teach of the existence of one or more deities who created the universe, and continue to play a major role in managing it -- sometimes bypassing the laws of nature to create miracles. A main function of religion is to teach moral principles, mankind's relationship to the god(s) or goddess(es), behavior towards other humans, spiritual matters, etc."

From a thehumanist.org-link
Is Science a Religion? by Richard Dawkins

"Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you."

Biologist John A. Moore, in his book, Science as a way of Knowing, writes:

"A fundamental difference between religious and scientific thought is that the received beliefs in religion are ultimately based on revelation or pronouncements, usually by some long-dead prophet or priest. These revelations or pronouncements become the dogma of faith. … In contrast, the statements of science are derived ultimately from the data and experiment, and from the manipulation of these data according to logical and often mathematical procedures."

Perhaps your debate partner is just so used to blindly believing whatever is told to him that he assumes that those who believe in science behave similarly.


Meg


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick