Religion and Logic

[NaobisDad]

I'm a scientist in training, and have recenlty seen a newly promoted winner of multiple talent prizes convert to christianity with a passion many chirstians would envy.

That, and other personal reasons, led me to delving deeper into the material, and I haven't finished.

I'd just like to say this. Knowing the scientifical process from up close I can tell you that science is governed by dogmatism and faith no more or less than religion.

Due to the methodology used today, especially for the more abstract principles it holds that if you look hard enough you shall find.

Evolution is a beautiful theory, however it's not as solidly argumented as people generally think. Much evidence can be interpreted both ways. An explosion of species in archeological findings seems to suggest sudden creation more than gradual change. Not to mention the fact that no missing links have ever been found. Also, don't forget a lot of christian scientist are really happy with the big bang theory.

My personal believe is a little more practical. I don't know which theory is right, and I won't claim I do. I'll rather look at problems from the perspective of different theories, and I find that works well for me.

[NaobisDad]

Many religions are based on the revelations of 1 man, eg. mohammed, Krishna etc.

A funny thing I find interesting about the bible is that it's based on the witnessreports of many people, and the internal consistency of the book seems to be quite good.

That would score 1 for the christians, I just can't figure out which group. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chawinski]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a beautiful theory, however it's not as solidly argumented as people generally think. Much evidence can be interpreted both ways. An explosion of species in archeological findings seems to suggest sudden creation more than gradual change. Not to mention the fact that no missing links have ever been found.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a scientist in training you should know that if you use the word 'theory' in physics/chemistry/biology etc.. then this is very different from the way it is used in day-to-day conversation. Theory means that a certain model has been thoroughly tried and tested and not a single piece of evidence has been found that contradicts/falsifies it. Evolution by Natural Selection is a 'theory' in the sense that Relativity is a 'theory'.

True, science does hold onto some assumptions deep down(epistemological/metaphysical) but saying that science is govourned by dogmatism and faith is NONSENSE. The very reason it is so powerful is that the facts speak for themselves and genuine understanding of principles shows you what is true/false, you can test predictions to verify arguments and so forth - this is the very antithesis of dogmatism and faith.

[Fiery Jack]

Religion is man-made but equally so is science. We were happy once to believe the world was flat; a hundred years from now people will be laughing at what we currently think a 'black hole' is. The truth is only what you make of it.

[NaobisDad]

I disagree. Scientist hold on to their believes rigidly, and if it were so that facts speak for themselves, there would be no reason for scientist ever to disagree, but they do.

Many succesful scientist built a career out of developping a theory and spend the rest of their times defending it. Often it is because they take an extreme point of view on a topic.
They have faith in that the line they have chosen is the right one and in defeding it, they are more often than not dogmatic (for understandable reasons).

As for the evolution theory. There is no general consesus yet on the evidence supporting it or falsifying it. Yet, the majority of scientist accept the evolution theory as being a solid fact, rather than what it is.

I can especially say this for my own field which is psychology.

It is an illusion to think scientists are governed by facts and objectivity alone. Scientist are subjective like everyone else, and scientifical methodology doesn't necessarily control for this.

Perhaps my observations hold more for the social sciences in which emperical evidence gathered is less straight forward than in eg. physics. But I will back the claim that once a theory is supported with statistical evidence, my claims hold true.

[Cpt Spaulding]

Here is my take on religion and God.....Hope this clears up any and all questions on the topic:

The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy. This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily. Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven.

[goldcowboy]

[/ QUOTE ] The concern in theology is the ontological question of how man came into being

[/ QUOTE ]

And WHY he came into being.

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]
What does the Bible say about the age of the earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing what-so-ever, unless you assume it to be a literal work, which is a fairly juvinille assumption, given that the communities that spawned the texts didn't use them as literal works.

It's also a fairly common, but entirely misguided, mistake to look at the Bible as one work. It's not. It never has been. It's a collection of works that were brought together because of their liturgical, not doctrinal, importance.

[goldcowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah! You're thinking of the doctrine of the virgin birth. Different term for that, but it escapes me at the moment.

Anyway, again, definitionally a miricle. The claim made is "outside of all expected phyiscal reasons, the following happened due to the intervention of God in history." So it's tautologically not a scientific claim either.

However, there may well be a scientific explaination for it anyway. Parthenogenesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting idea, but if parthenogenesis were at work in this case then Jesus would have been born female, as the offspring would receive genetic code identical to the mother.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
An explosion of species in archeological findings seems to suggest sudden creation more than gradual change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you are trying to refer to paleontology in the above sentence.



[ QUOTE ]
Also, don't forget a lot of christian scientist are really happy with the big bang theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why are 'christian scientist' happy with this theory. Are they so lacking in faith that their beliefs must be bolstered up by some scientific theory?

[ QUOTE ]
Much evidence can be interpreted both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what evidence are you referring to?

-Zeno