That Religion Thing?

SarahBeep!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your point?

If an English teacher told me the correct way to spell "Hey guys" is "Hai Guyz" I wouldn't agree with them.

I defined science as being:
The systematic study of the physical and natural world.

Then you said "That's only one part of science"

What other part of science is there? I wouldn't want to miss out on it.

That's because you know he/she would be wrong. How do you know I'm wrong?(How do I know I'm right? I don't, but I can justify my beliefs.)

No, I said the natural world was only one part of science.

(And you can cut the sarcasm. /Teacher Voice)

partyatmygaff

Pygmalion wrote: »

It kinda is.

But it's not :P

Science will only ever be the study of the natural and physical world as per the capability of human reasoning. It is unlikely that there will ever be a point where someone can claim to fully understand all facets of the natural world.

A theist believes that God exists and that God is the creator of existence. They also believe that God is immortal. The natural world (What we understand to be the universe) can be observed through scientific study to be finite. An immortal being who is infinite and of infinite ability created a universe that is finite with finite limits. The creator is not limited by his creation.

philologos

partyatmygaff - I think that they mean that the world is too limited. It can study the nature of the universe also.

partyatmygaff

SarahBeep! wrote: »

That's because you know he/she would be wrong. How do you know I'm wrong?(How do I know I'm right? I don't, but I can justify my beliefs.)

Pygmallion's definition of science that he found on Google is

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

That is all that science is. The crux of it is the study of the physical and natural world. There is no other part.

No, I said the natural world was only one part of science.

The natural and physical world is the only remit of science. What other parts are there?

partyatmygaff

philologos wrote: »

partyatmygaff - I think that they mean that the world is too limited. It can study the nature of the universe also.

The universe is also part of the natural world.

Jaafa

I feel lonely with my 0.91 percent.

Pygmalion

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But it's not :P

Science will only ever be the study of the natural and physical world as per the capability of human reasoning. It is unlikely that there will ever be a point where someone can claim to fully understand all facets of the natural world.

A theist believes that God exists and that God is the creator of existence. They also believe that God is immortal. The natural world (What we understand to be the universe) can be observed through scientific study to be finite. An immortal being who is infinite and of infinite ability created a universe that is finite with finite limits. The creator is not limited by his creation.

Ok, you seem to be missing the point, perhaps not unintentionally...

If two things contradict each other they are not compatible.
Miracles (by definition) go against our scientific understanding of the world, i.e. they contradict it.

You can believe that Miracles happen, go ahead.
But you can't claim that you hold these beliefs without rejecting established scientific knowledge.

Maybe what you meant to say was "Religion and Science are compatible, until I decide it'd suit me better to just ignore science".

philologos

Pygmalion wrote: »

You can believe that Miracles happen, go ahead.
But you can't claim that you hold these beliefs without rejecting established scientific knowledge.

Maybe what you meant to say was "Religion and Science are compatible, until I decide it'd suit me better to just ignore science".

This simply isn't true. I don't believe that miracles are frequent occurrences that are regularly observed by science. They are by nature extremely rare. I can believe fully in science as a description of how things predominately operate. If I believe in God, and if I believe that He created the universe and the laws that govern it, I don't see how these laws could not be modified or suspended by God. Unless you are to say that science precludes me from believing in God as the author of the universe?

If I believed that miracles were regular, and if I believed they were normal I wouldn't refer to them as miracles.

partyatmygaff

Pygmalion wrote: »

Ok, you seem to be missing the point, perhaps not unintentionally...

I could certainly say the same for you.

If two things contradict each other they are not compatible.
Miracles (by definition) go against our scientific understanding of the world, i.e. they contradict it.

Our scientific understanding of the world is limited by the capacity of our intellect. It is not absolute understanding and it never can be. Note that I am not saying that I reject what we know.

Miracles are by definition an extraordinary event that cannot be explained by purely natural or scientific laws. A theist believes that God as being the creator of the natural world is supernatural. As such, he is not limited by natural laws. As I said before, the creator is not limited by their creation.

You can believe that Miracles happen, go ahead.

I will.

Maybe what you meant to say was "Religion and Science are compatible, until I decide it'd suit me better to just ignore science".

Nah, that's not what I meant to say at all. I've already said what I meant.

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

This simply isn't true. I don't believe that miracles are frequent occurrences that are regularly observed by science. I can believe fully in science as a description of how things predominately operate.

I wouldn't really say you accept the results of an experiment if you believe it only holds true at certain times (whether "certain times" is 10% of the time or 99.9999%).
Perhaps you have an issue with the conditions under which the experiment was performed or something, which is valid.
But to take a result that has been verified repeatably and without fail, and to say "Yeah, I guess this works, but not when God says no" isn't really accepting that Science is compatible with religion.

It's saying that Science is good enough for most purposes, but that the results can't be counted on, because they can be suspended at will.

If I believe in God, and if I believe that He created the universe and the laws that govern it, I don't see how these laws could not be modified or suspended by God.

Maybe they can be, but if they can be then you come to the above problem.

Unless you are to say that science precludes me from believing in God as the author of the universe?

No, but when you start to believe that he actively suspends or modifies the rules under which the universe operates then you have to make a choice.

Grindylow

SarahBeep! wrote: »

You're talking to a science teacher...

Science Teacher doesn't equate to scientist.. Nor does Science Teacher in training equate to science teacher..

Pygmalion

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Science Teacher doesn't equate to scientist.. Nor does Science Teacher in training equate to science teacher..

It does tend to equate to knowing what Science is, on the other hand, which was what that was in relation to.

philologos

Pygmalion wrote: »

I wouldn't really say you accept the results of an experiment if you believe it only holds true at certain times (whether "certain times" is 10% of the time or 99.9999%).
Perhaps you have an issue with the conditions under which the experiment was performed or something, which is valid.
But to take a result that has been verified repeatably and without fail, and to say "Yeah, I guess this works, but not when God says no" isn't really accepting that Science is compatible with religion.

Science is the observation of what God has made in so far as theists are concerned. Unless you are suggesting that science forces us to conclude that God can't exist, which is evidently false given the number of Christian scientists, or indeed the scientists involved in other religions.

Pygmalion wrote: »

It's saying that Science is good enough for most purposes, but that the results can't be counted on, because they can be suspended at will.

Actually, most of us will agree that science has limits. Science has a lot of utility and we should be thankful for it, but sometimes other tools like philosophy are best used when we are dealing with morality, or in coming to agreement about the values we should hold.

I think most scientists would be able to agree that there are limits to its application.

Pygmalion wrote: »

No, but when you start to believe that he actively suspends or modifies the rules under which the universe operates then you have to make a choice.

The thing is I actually don't only unless we are starting with the assumption that God doesn't exist. I agree that if God doesn't exist the idea of miracles are absurd. However, if He does and I believe it is reasonable to believe that He does then they are perfectly possible.

I'm afraid this attempt to ram science as a circle into a triangular atheistic hole isn't really working. It's a highly dishonest way to use science.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your point?

If an English teacher told me the correct way to spell "Hey guys" is "Hai Guyz" I wouldn't agree with them.

I defined science as being:
The systematic study of the physical and natural world.

Then you said "That's only one part of science"

What other part of science is there? I wouldn't want to miss out on it.

I'm still waiting on an answer for this SarahPeep. If there's more to study in science than the natural and physical world i'd really like to hear of it. You are the science teacher after all and ought to know better than me.

Grindylow

Pygmalion wrote: »

It does tend to equate to knowing what Science is, on the other hand, which was what that was in relation to.

Yes, but it doesn't equate to being the one who knows all there is to know about religion.

Sure, I can go out and say "I saw a pig flying" and be very convincing of it, but in reality I can't prove it.

I'm not saying science isn't what caused the world, in fact, I do believe it. But I also do believe that there is a form of God. I respect my views, your views, everyone else's views, but there's no need to try and influence someone else's views based on your 'knowledge' of science, and because you feel everyone needs to know your view on it as it is 100% correct..

philologos

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Sure, I can go out and say "I saw a pig flying" and be very convincing of it, but in reality I can't prove it.

You can't prove 99% of what there is to know, including much science. Proof lies solely in the realm of mathematics. Science deals with evidence.

What we need to look at is what reasons people use to profess faith in God, or indeed lack of faith in God as that is the best we're going to get in this argument.

What makes God's existence evident or what doesn't? That's the best we can do.

SarahBeep!

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Science Teacher doesn't equate to scientist.. Nor does Science Teacher in training equate to science teacher..

Actually my degree does industry qualify me.
I'm pretty sure that someone half way through a SCIENCE degree knows a damn sight more than someone who isn't. That ok with you Noel?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm still waiting on an answer for this SarahPeep. If there's more to study in science than the natural and physical world i'd really like to hear of it. You are the science teacher after all and ought to know better than me.

Now you're bringing up physical science. Which you didnt before.
The main divisions in science are natural and physical.
And you might want to double check my name.


In all seriousness, is this subtle trolling? Coz that's the vibe I'm getting.

Slow Show

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Yes, but it doesn't equate to being the one who knows all there is to know about religion.

In fairness, that's not what she said at all.

Grindylow

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Actually my degree does industry qualify me.
I'm pretty sure that someone half way through a SCIENCE degree knows a damn sight more than someone who isn't. That ok with you Noel? .

Nope, it's not okay with me. I'm sick of reading your posts here trying to force your view upon others.

No wonder people don't want a conversation with an atheist, it's like trying to sell oil to the Arab's. I don't try to push my religion upon you..

partyatmygaff

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Now you're bringing up physical science. Which you didnt before.

Except I did.

Science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world. That's all it ever was, all it is and all it ever will be.

In all seriousness, is this subtle trolling? Coz that's the vibe I'm getting.

That's the vibe i'm getting off you. A science teacher who has been claiming that there is more to science than the study of the physical and natural world.

Davidius

philologos wrote: »

My question was is all faith blind? - My answer would seem to be no. I can give you reasons why I believe in God or what makes my faith evident to me. Indeed my faith calls me to do this (1 Peter 3:15). I think partyatmygaff's points are perfectly valid, and it's great to see someone as eager to defend his faith on this forum and that's why I have a lot of respect for him. I will be revising that current link to make another post at some point to refine what is already there.

I don't really have the interest or wherewithal to research most of your claims, but your point about the probability seems a little off. I don't see how mentioning the probability of a configuration carries any weight. If a number was randomly selected from uniform distribution over the interval [0,1], the probability that you would choose the number 0.5 is exactly 0. If I end up choosing 0.5 it does not mean that the number was divinely chosen despite having zero probability. In the grand scheme of things most specific events occur with either near-zero or zero probability.

Then about 99% of all we know cannot be subject to mathematical proof. It seems a little pointless to invoke it now?

I pointed out that the idea that there is no absolute proof in mathematics as a subject itself is misleading/wrong as an off-topic remark. The validity of mathematical models is a different discussion.

Slow Show

Sarahpeep :L

I don't think anyone is trolling, having just read through this. You all just have quite strong opinions and tbh ye can debate about it until the cows come home but not one of your views will change. It's interesting to read, yeah, but religion is just one of those things. Me? I'd tend to agree with what Sarahbeep and Pygmalion are saying for the most part, but I respect what everyone else had to say and I actually found out a lot of things I had no clue about.

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

Science is the observation of what God has made in so far as theists are concerned. Unless you are suggesting that science forces us to conclude that God can't exist, which is evidently false given the number of Christian scientists, or indeed the scientists involved in other religions.

I never said Science forces you to conclude that (this is in fact the 3rd time in this thread I've had to state this).

Actually, most of us will agree that science has limits. Science has a lot of utility and we should be thankful for it, but sometimes other tools like philosophy are best used when we are dealing with morality, or in coming to agreement about the values we should hold.

I think most scientists would be able to agree that there are limits to its application.

I never said there weren't limits, there obviously are, but there's a major difference between believing that science shouldn't be a moral guide, and believing that maybe it's possible for a man to turn water into wine, because Science surely can't know for definite, right?
I trust you see why these are different situations?

You appear to be saying that Science doesn't just "have limits", but that it cannot be used to accurately describe or discover anything because the rules that it seeks to find can be (and are, on occasion) changed at will.

The thing is I actually don't only unless we are starting with the assumption that God doesn't exist. I agree that if God doesn't exist the idea of miracles are absurd. However, if He does and I believe it is reasonable to believe that He does then they are perfectly possible.

You cannot claim two things to be compatible, then turn around and say that the first doesn't count when it's not convenient for the second.
Likewise you can't just decide that the first is too limited to describe a certain phenomenon because of the second, when in fact it does quite a good job, and there's no reason to suggest it won't continue to do so.

I'm afraid this attempt to ram science as a circle into a triangular atheistic hole isn't really working. It's a highly dishonest way to use science.

I was going to say something similar myself.

SarahBeep!

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Nope, it's not okay with me. I'm sick of reading your posts here trying to force your view upon others.

No wonder people don't want a conversation with an atheist, it's like trying to sell oil to the Arab's. I don't try to push my religion upon you..

So I'm an Athiest now am I? :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You might wanna backtrack a bit.

Never once did I claim Athiesm. Not once.

I'm not forcing anything, I'm giving MY opinion. Which I'm entitled to do.

Pygmalion

Noel2k9 wrote: »

No wonder people don't want a conversation with an atheist, it's like trying to sell oil to the Arab's. I don't try to push my religion upon you..

Nope, you just ridicule us publicly by implying no-one wants to talk to us. ;_;
Clearly taking the high ground.

Anyway, I apologise for discussing religion in the religion discussion thread.

Jackobyte

philologos wrote: »

However, if He does and I believe it is reasonable to believe that He does then they are perfectly possible.

Why is it reasonable to believe he does though?
We have no evidence at all. There is a book which claims that he does and there may have been a man 2,000 years ago who claimed to be his son (the existence of Jesus even lacks proof, no historians of the time even mention him in passing, the Bible contains the only references to him).

If a man was born today and walked around, claiming to be the son of god, he'd be marked as psychotic right away.

Why is it reasonable to believe in something that offers no proof? As Bobby Henderson said, I could say that I believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why do I believe in it, because you can't prove it doesn't exist. It is as reasonable as God.

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

philologos

Pygmalion wrote: »

I never said there weren't limits, there obviously are, but there's a major difference between believing that science shouldn't be a moral guide, and believing that maybe it's possible for a man to turn water into wine, because Science surely can't know for definite, right?
I trust you see why these are different situations?

No not at all. I've explained why miracles aren't an issue. If God is Creator I have no reason to believe that God couldn't do anything described in the Bible. If God isn't, I agree, it is ridiculous. That's pretty straightforward as I would see it.

Pygmalion wrote: »

You appear to be saying that Science doesn't just "have limits", but that it cannot be used to accurately describe or discover anything because the rules that it seeks to find can be (and are, on occasion) changed at will.

I believe science is about observation, and testing. Observation and testing is based on what occurs on a regular basis. Even atheistic philosopher David Hume suggested much the same. I can expect the sun to rise again tomorrow only in so far as it has done so repeatedly since the beginning. It is possible that it won't do the same thing in the morning, but all probability based on empiricism suggests that it will.

Pygmalion wrote: »

You cannot claim two things to be compatible, then turn around and say that the first doesn't count when it's not convenient for the second.
Likewise you can't just decide that the first is too limited to describe a certain phenomenon because of the second, when in fact it does quite a good job, and there's no reason to suggest it won't continue to do so.

I can claim both to be compatible in so far as what science tells us can be true of what occurs on a regular basis. God is the ultimate cause of all things and in rare cases can manipulate the laws that He has given the universe. They only become incompatible when we assume that God doesn't exist.

Pygmalion wrote: »

I was going to say something similar myself.

Difference. I'm not using science to argue for my position. All I'm saying is that science doesn't pose any form of problem in terms of my religious belief. You on the other hand seem to be treating science as atheism's handmaiden.

Jackobyte: See the link I gave to Davidus a few posts ago, I have an exam tomorrow and that would take me too long to reply to right now.

Grindylow

Pygmalion wrote: »

Nope, you just ridicule us publicly by implying no-one wants to talk to us. ;_;
Clearly taking the high ground.

Anyway, I apologise for discussing religion in the religion discussion thread.

Clearly I wasn't talking about you.

I don't have a problem with your posts, not did I quote them to issue the fact that I did. Your's are posted in a logical manner at least..

Pygmalion

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Clearly I wasn't talking about you.

I don't have a problem with your posts, not did I quote them to issue the fact that I did. Your's are posted in a logical manner at least..

You were talking about Atheists as a whole.
You were most definitely talking about me.
If you have a problem with someone in particular, you should probably talk about that person, not an entire group of people.

SarahBeep!

Pretty sure you can't be talking about me....seeing as I'm not an Athiest!