Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (9/8/14 - 9/14/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
I am not sure on what exactly you mean by mixing or by it happening before. How do you mix the two into something coherent? As you say, science is broad and covers a lot of areas however at the heart of all that there is the fact that science deals with facts, measurements and testable predictions. Properly religious topics don't involve things you can make testable predictions on.
Well, you can believe in God but not let that affect your conclusions. The idea of Creationism coupled with science can be done, but the problem is that atheists tend to say pure evolution or religious fanatics just say it's God and deny any evidence that shows evolution could have played a part. I mean, it's not like believing in God means evolution is wrong, or believing that life was created due to natural occurrences would prove God wrong. Atheists and religious people don't seem to understand the whole point behind science, and I believe that's where the problem lies.
Also, much respect to Urey-Miller for an experiment that created life.
It depends on what time of creationism you are talking about. There is theistic creationism which pretty much accepts science as it is but sees natural processes merely as the methods or tools through which things were created (so god is never actually a part of the scientific explanation of why something happens). I think this is what you are referring to as a mix of the two. In turn I was using that particular logic to say they shouldn't mix lol. In theistic creationism science and religion are effectively separated IMO because god or the supernatural never have a place in a properly scientific argument (because you can't make testable predictions on the existence of god or the supernatural). In turn the remaining forms of creationism pretty much blend science and religion together into something that just does not make sense from a purely scientific point of view. You have "theories" like "god created the earth out of nothing 6000 years ago" or that "certain things in the universe can only be explained by divine intervention and not natural processes". Those are what I am referring to as a mix of science and religion and I call bad science and bad religion.
If one were to take a look at the historical progression of science, they could see that Christianity paved the way for scientific progression which the modern era either willfully rejects or ignorantly rejects. In a way, the Western world still operates in a Christian framework whether you believe it or not. This could either be a positive Christian theology or a negative Christian theology such as Atheism. Why? Even atheists requires God in order for they belief system to work.
Theology could be divided into two categories, as I understood it, to be special revelation and natural revelation. Special revelation deals with the Bible and what God has revealed Himself to humanity. Natural revelation is what human beings could understand through their natural senses. As time went on, natural revelation took precedence over special revelation. With this there was an increased push in the sciences. As science progressed, for some, Christianity became more mechanical and Deism was formed. A famed Deist was Thomas Jefferson. Deism is Christianity without the miracles, wonders and supernatural. For others, the progression of science strengthened their faith in Christ because natural theology revealed that there are universal constants that when changed will endanger or destroy life. They asked how such constants were put into place.
Now, in theology, both creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and evolution can exist. This is because of a theological and philosophical conclusion which is that there is no infinite regression or in simpler terms, no infinite past. Thus, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, we have two possibilities, either there was nothing or there was an infinitely condense mass which both are impossible. The problem is that something or someone has to kick off both processes, and this is where some will not like the fact that someone outside the system needs to interact with the system for it to work.
I would like to state that from a theological point of view, natural theology and science are the same although it is also attested that philosophy is what undergirds science.
From my observations, there will always be arguments for or against whatever people believe in be it God or no God. The entire discussion at the academic level is complex but highly informative. Complex not in just it is hard but you get lots of wacky information that needs to be sorted out.
Another observation I have made, not all Christian should be disregard was stupid and foolish. There are those who are highly intellectual. Another observation I have also made regarding atheists, only highly intellectual atheists fully comprehend the devastation that result from not having no God the center. Such atheists are Zizak, Sloterdijk and Meillassoux. Bottomline is that both sides conclude that this world is a piece of shit place to live in, but Christianity can baffling allow a person to enjoy this dump.
Yeah, atheists mostly view God as a claim that can't be proved.
Sort of like if I claim there's an invisible unicorn, and you tell me there isn't, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.
So, your belief that there's no unicorn? That doesn't really mean your system of belief requires the unicorn. You just reject is entirely.
(I don't mean that atheism or theism is fundamentally more correct, I just mean that you're, at the very least, fully misrepresenting atheism with that sentence. It's true that atheism rejects the concept of God and such a concept must exist as a concept before you can reject it, but... that means nothing. The God Himself doesn't need to exist in order for him to be rejected.
Yes, the Western world does still operate in a Christian framework, and that's what holds us back.
Atheists do not require God for their belief system to work. I do not need God, simply because I don't think about him or give a crap about him. Only atheists that keep clamoring that God is fake would need him for their belief system to work since it focuses on negating the existence of God.
From my observation, it has been mostly the religious side that has come up with wacky information. "So we evolved from monkeys? If we evolved from monkeys, why are they still here?" As if, these people did not bother reading up on the theory and just heard few words of it and made their own conclusion without understanding.Quote:
Who has? I haven't seen a lot of people say all Christians or believers of God are stupid and foolish. There are plenty of brilliant scientists who believe in a deity no matter what their religion was.Quote:
If I recall, Native Americans were thriving without having God at the center, they only believed in the spirit/s and were living well until the white settlers (Christians and Catholics) forced them out of their land, killed a lot of them, and moved them to a small camp/area. however, I'm not sure how accurate this is, with the thriving and all. But it seems Native Americans had the better religion/belief than Christians because they actually respected life. Or was that just few tribes?
How does Christianity allow someone to enjoy "this dump?" Christians are too scared to go to Hell, so they spend their lives appeasing something they were brainwashed to believe in from a young age without any proof he exists, doing what society tells them. You seem to be highly biased towards Christianity.
Fact is, no religion or lack of allows someone to enjoy "this dump," it's totally up to the person him or herself. An atheist like me can enjoy living in this world while a Christian like you would hate this world and think about committing suicide despite Jesus loving you and all that stuff.
Anyone who says we evolved from monkeys should also keep in mind that there is a difference between monkeys and apes. Monkeys have a tail whereas apes are tailless.
Anyone who says that probably doesn't even know much about primates or evolution at all. There's more proof to evolution than there is that God is real or Jesus had powers, yet people still insist otherwise.
I tend to see arrogance being a big part of why people don't want to believe we are part of the primate order, because people feel offended at being descendants of "monkeys."
There are some, and there are more proof that scientific theories and discoveries shouldn't be refuted on the basis of "BUT BIBLE!"
I wouldn't say arrogance, more like simply a lack of understanding of the general purpose of science, the methodology behind it and the concept of evolution and the vast amount of information which backs it up. From what I can tell the people who still reject that as if scientific theory meant "opinion" still use things like missing links or second law of thermodynamics as evidence against evolution.
There is no evidence against religious believes in general. There can't be, its not how science works. The scientific method relies on making testable predictions which you basically compare with available information or models or whatnot. So the only plausible responses you can get from science regarding religious stuff, faith, is along the lines of "there is no evidence to support that" or "you can't put that hypothesis to test" along with the occasional "science does not work that way".
There are some. Carbon dating indicates that some of the oldest stuff are older than when the Bible said the earth was created. Archeology also states dinosaurs existed, which the Bible glosses over conveniently.
Well, that depends on what particular view on the bible you have. The most common view today of at least the larger christian groups is that the bible is by no means meant to be taken literally. The particular view you mention does not apply to the majority of christians as far as I can tell. I get the impression that that particular view of the bible is a problem mostly at the states (although even then it is mostly a particularly loud minority), I have yet to hear about that sort of fundamentalism being such a big issue elsewhere....
Dude, religion is another type of ideology. Be it rational or not, people still look up justification to defend their belief. It just way of thinking. You should not accuse someone for their way of think, as they should not accuse you too. Be religious or not, it is up to you. You, believe in science, don't you think it is another type of religion, in different way?