Science or Religion ?

[wmw999 2,551]

Quote

Not everyone has the same opinion as you!

Yeah, but if they do they're wrong

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think the conservatives will like Jupiter!

and the liberals will like Uranus

(don't tell me you didn't set that up on purpose)

The conservatives will actually like Uranus (tap tap), but they won't admit it.
The liberals will just say that there's not anything wrong with that and have a parade. but secretly despise them and anyone different than them in reality except for the votes they take for granted

(don't tell me you didn't set that up on purpose)

{{oops, I think I again mixed up liberal with Democrat again}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

faith and science are two completely unrelated items and there is no conflict in in any combination of belief systems relating to the two

except if you're a fundalmentalist.

of either type

either type of what? religion?

yes

1 - the fundamentally 'religious' types
2 - the fundamentally religiously 'anti-religious' types

both will rationalize anything they can get their hands on to spread their holy messages

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

faith and science are two completely unrelated items and there is no conflict in in any combination of belief systems relating to the two

except if you're a fundalmentalist.

of either type

either type of what? religion?

yes

1 - the fundamentally 'religious' types
2 - the fundamentally religiously 'anti-religious' types

both will rationalize anything they can get their hands on to spread their holy messages

fundamental religious - believe bible literally, creationism, the earth is less than 5000 years old, its center of the universe, adam and eve were real people, noahs ark.....bla bla bla they have a real problem with any modern science.

fundamental anti religious - not sure who you are referring to. vocal atheists? extreme left wing kooks?

science - just wants tangible, testable, repeatable, proof. science likes to be disproven. it means we have learned something new.

Born ok 1st time.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Science fits my mindset better.
P.S Why do people vote but don't comment?

Your comment, above, said nothing more than your vote, so it really isn't any better than no comment at all.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

fundamental religious - believe bible literally, creationism, the earth is less than 5000 years old, its center of the universe, adam and eve were real people, noahs ark.....bla bla bla they have a real problem with any modern science.

fundamental anti religious - not sure who you are referring to. vocal atheists? extreme left wing kooks?

science - just wants tangible, testable, repeatable, proof. science likes to be disproven. it means we have learned something new.

see, I thought we were having fun there, but it turns out you are in the same rut as the others - assigning stereotype based on the

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

see, I thought we were having fun there, but it turns out you are in the same rut as the others - assigning stereotype based on the

Hmmm ... it seems that you have done a variant on what you accuse [frequentfaller] of doing -- taking some small percentage that fits what you want to see and assigning that to the overall group: "always" and "never", eh?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[frequentfaller 0]

I am having fun. I like discussions, I dont try to prove. I try to learn. new ideas, differnt points of view

not sterotyped.
religious fundamentalists believe sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods.
I dont know what percentage of any of the religions believe that their scared text is inerrant word of god or gods. I'm sure there is a wide spectrum of belief. from strict following of the text(s) word for word, to a looser basic belief without following all the rules. I just am trying to understand who the fundamental anti religious are? I dont hate religions. I find some of them interesting. I am trying to find out who these anti religion "zealots" are? the only impact I fear is when the fundamentalists try to put religion in schools. i dont know what impacts the "real" science advocates.

Born ok 1st time.

[wmw999 2,551]

I find that listening to extremely fundamentalist people (of any religion) talking about their world can be interesting. Not politics necessarily, but just the thought that by bounding their world so narrowly, does that mean that they explore it more deeply?

Many people by nature seem to be tribal; some have a strong pull, others a weaker one. Exploring how people interact within their tribe, with others outside it, and what happens when they break the norms is just interesting.

And it all says a whole lot about context -- once you define and bound your world, that becomes your context by which you judge right and wrong.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I find that listening to extremely fundamentalist people (of any religion) talking about their world can be interesting. Not politics necessarily, but just the thought that by bounding their world so narrowly, does that mean that they explore it more deeply?

That's a really interesting idea.

Not sure I agree with ... nor disagree with it ... but find it intellectually provocative.

When I was in grad school, one of my colleagues commented, only semi-facetiously, that if I ever focused myself on one thing that I could take over the world. To some extent, that was his kind way of saying I needed to focus more on research. The world is full of so many interesting people to meet, ideas to explore, places to visit, books to read, & experiences to savor.

There are grand themes that tie a lot of what I pursue together ... but sometimes the connections may only be visible to me.

I do have something of an admiration for those who can devote themselves so deeply and fully, especially w/r/t service to others.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[frequentfaller 0]

interesting Phenomenology page.

http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/ph.php

On the relation of culture to self Gadamer says,
Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society and state in which we Live. The focus of subjectivity is a distorting mirror. The self-awareness of the individual is only a flickering in the closed circuits of historical life. That is why the prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being.
10. In order to 'understand' one must 'foreunderstand', have a stance, an anticipation and a contextualization.

Born ok 1st time.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

see, I thought we were having fun there, but it turns out you are in the same rut as the others - assigning stereotype based on the

Hmmm ... it seems that you have done a variant on what you accuse [frequentfaller] of doing -- taking some small percentage that fits what you want to see and assigning that to the overall group: "always" and "never", eh?

/Marg

it's true, it's true, I confess - {{sob}}


on the plus side - I believe we just succeeded in you issuing your most pithy post ever. I'm buying

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am trying to find out who these anti religion "zealots" are?

you can really see it in a lot of the threads here even

look around, it's as fun to tease them as it is to tease people like Chuteless, and about as effective

the important part is to mock everyone as much as one can without necessarily being mean

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[altrisk 0]

Question: Is majority opinion always right?

Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. In particular, the following scientists were creationists:

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)

Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.

[wmw999 2,551]

Ya know, it's not real surprising that Christians who were adults before The origin of species became pretty common knowledge, would consider themselves to be Creationists. Especially the ones who really didn't study biological sciences in any detail. And none of them was exposed to the ridiculous quibbling over "speciation" and whether "intelligent design" was compatible with evolution or not. We invented that.

Where did you get that list from?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Where did you get that list from?

Don't you mean:

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT LIST FROM!!!

*shaking fist*

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[frequentfaller 0]

most of them were dead in the 19th century.

Born ok 1st time.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

most of them were dead in the 19th century.

I think the point is that it really hasn't hindered the progression of science...

I might add....until Georgre Bush that is.

(eh, I'm just getting my stabs in like everyone else.)

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Question: Is majority opinion always right?

No. Truth isn't democratic.

Quote

Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.

Up until around 200 years ago, very nearly everyone was a creationist of some sort.

Quote

To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries. The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

Oh really? Anything to support that assertion?

Quote

There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past.

See above - that's hardly a surprise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,080]

>The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

Actually, before around the year 1000, it was the Arab world who led the world in science and math. (Note that you used Arabic, not Roman, numbers in your post.)

>There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past.

And none of these famous scientists, philosophers and mathematicians believed in, or even acknowledged the existence of, Christ:


* Andronicus of Rhodes, (c. 70 BC)C
* Antiochus of Ascalon, (c. 130-68 BC)CO12RS
* Antiphon, (480-403 BC)R
* Archimedes, (d. 212 BC)
* Aristotle, (384 BC-322 BC)
* Cicero, (106 BC-43 BC)CO12R
* Confucius, (551 BC - 479 BC)CO12RS
* Diogenes of Sinope, (412-323 BC)O12R
* Epicurus, (341 BC-270 BC)O12RS
* Euclid (c. 365-275 BC)
* Heraclitus of Ephesus, (ca. 535-475 BC)CO12R
* Hippocrates, (460-380 BC)CO12
* Isocrates, (436-338 BC)C
* Plato, (c. 427 BC-c. 347 BC)CO12RS
* Pythagoras, (582 BC-496 BC)CO12RS
* Socrates, (470 BC-399 BC)CO12RS
* Sun Tzu, (4th century BC)
* Thucydides, (c. 460-c. 400 BC)R
* Zeno (333 BC-264 BC)O12R

But that doesn't mean all that much about the validity of Christ's message, does it?

[maadmax 0]

But that doesn't mean all that much about the validity of Christ's message, does it?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

But that doesn't mean all that much about the validity of Christ's message, does it?

But it does mean something about the open minded approach these people employed to assemble truth regarding physical and spiritual reality. In light of that, their embracing God's message means a lot to anyone who still has an open mind to the Truth.

...

Personally, I tend to agree with Albert E., who didn't believe in a personal god. I would consider him open minded.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,080]

>But it does mean something about the open minded approach these
>people employed to assemble truth regarding physical and spiritual
>reality.

True. It says you don't need Christianity to become wise in both physical and spiritual ways.