PDA

View Full Version : Science and Religion



Sir_Winkey
07-13-2007, 08:16 AM
Dr. John P. Pratt has a Ph.D. in astronomy and specializes in religious chronology and ancient calendars. Here is his artical on Science, Religion and their interactions.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/051220scienceqa.html

Read and discuss.

kwarad
07-13-2007, 08:42 AM
Religion, on the other hand, claims a different source of knowledge. It arrives are "truth" through other means, such as dreams, visions, and visitations from beings from invisible realms. Often the claim is indeed made in religion that absolute truth has been revealed, such as when the Creator of the heavens and the earth shares his knowledge with us.

Rofl. 'Religious' really needs to be classified as a new mental disorder. This idea that your dreams and visions and books written 2,000 years ago by someone you've never met somehow reveal the true otherwise invisible fabric of reality. Explain to me the difference between that and schizophrenia, oh wait, there isn't one.

Sir_Winkey
07-13-2007, 08:47 AM
LOL^ Show some backing for your refute.

Uniquely_Defined
07-13-2007, 09:49 AM
Rofl. 'Religious' really needs to be classified as a new mental disorder. This idea that your dreams and visions and books written 2,000 years ago by someone you've never met somehow reveal the true otherwise invisible fabric of reality. Explain to me the difference between that and schizophrenia, oh wait, there isn't one.Well let's see.. One is a legitimate psychological disorder and the other is an extremely popular obsession. It's quite plausible that the breeze being funneled between your head is the rationale for having concocted such a distasteful comparison. Granted, I understand where you're coming from. I was reading a book the other day, and although I can't remember the exact quote, I think I come pretty close to accurately depicting the intended connotation.


If you tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or
there is an invisible man in the room, he'll require extensive evidence
like the rest of them. And, will only believe it to the extent of which you
prove it. But tell that same devout Christian that he'll be damned to the
fires of hell by an all powerful being if he doesn't follow every incredible
claim of a book, and he requires nothing besides faith.

saren
07-13-2007, 10:45 AM
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

It's actually being studied now that being religious and believing in God are indeed mental disorders or rather, a micro-evolution of the brain to no longer make people believe and hasn't spread through the whole population.

Sir_Winkey
07-13-2007, 11:23 AM
Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, secular humanist, and sceptic, and he is a prominent member of the Brights movement. Of course he is going to write bias bull.

kwarad
07-13-2007, 11:31 AM
Well let's see.. One is a legitimate psychological disorder and the other is an extremely popular obsession. It's quite plausible that the breeze being funneled between your head is the rationale for having concocted such a distasteful comparison. Granted, I understand where you're coming from. I was reading a book the other day, and although I can't remember the exact quote, I think I come pretty close to accurately depicting the intended connotation.


If you tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or
there is an invisible man in the room, he'll require extensive evidence
like the rest of them. And, will only believe it to the extent of which you
prove it. But tell that same devout Christian that he'll be damned to the
fires of hell by an all powerful being if he doesn't follow every incredible
claim of a book, and he requires nothing besides faith.


Now let's examine the definition of schizophrenia:



Schizophrenia (from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) word σχιζοφρένεια, or schizophreneia, meaning "split mind") is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) or expression of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality), most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination), paranoid or bizarre delusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion) or disorganized speech and thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_disorder) in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#_note-castle1991) with approximately 0.4–0.6%[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#_note-0)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#_note-fn_34) of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia exists

Seems like that fits religion to a T.

Sir_Winkey
07-13-2007, 11:59 AM
Where is your evidences? All I see is a definition and a claim that it fits it to a "T". So tell us how and why it fits it to a "T".

NoLongerHere
07-13-2007, 02:12 PM
<XnD> Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand

Religion is a way for people to think of themselves as something more than useless organisms without meaning or purpose. What better way to make yourself feel useful than to believe that a invisible celestial being is watching over and after you die it'll greet you in a magical place where ultimate satisfaction is the only rule.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could consider anything in the Bible or any other religious work of fiction true. I've read both the Qu'ran and the Bible and I have to say, I liked Lord of the Rings better. It had more rounded characters. :frown:

Sir_Winkey
07-13-2007, 02:34 PM
Religion is a way for people to think of themselves as something more than useless organisms without meaning or purpose. What better way to make yourself feel useful than to believe that a invisible celestial being is watching over and after you die it'll greet you in a magical place where ultimate satisfaction is the only rule.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could consider anything in the Bible or any other religious work of fiction true. I've read both the Qu'ran and the Bible and I have to say, I liked Lord of the Rings better. It had more rounded characters. :frown:
You didn't even post on topic. :mad:

Enough with this mindless spam people. Read the artical and discuss the artical. HOLY CRAP CHILDREN IT IS NOT THAT HARD!

Deg™
07-13-2007, 04:37 PM
Here's a radical idea: Live and let live.

Who cares what other people believe?

Just because I believe in a higher power doesn't make me any less of a person than you, and it doesn't affect you in the least (At least, negatively that is.).

Sir_Winkey
07-13-2007, 07:48 PM
Oh my gosh post on the topic!!! This is a serious discussion thread about the artical that I posted. Man learn to READ!!!!! WAKE UP CHILDREN! MAN I AM IRRITATED!

Will someone atleast put this ruined thread in the flame area since no one knows how to read. Geee wiz

Deg™
07-13-2007, 08:19 PM
I'm sorry, I did read your article, but cannot really see the merit in it, since Mormons aren't Christians. They're separate belief systems, so i cant really apply that to my Christian faith. Personally; I believe God uses scientific forces to reveal himself every day. In Calvinism, we refer to this as General Revelation, whereas a Special Revelation is a direct, spiritual revelation from God.

My previous comment was in reference to the anti-religion crowd who wants us all carted away because we don't accept their assumptions about the way things are.

Again, I apologize for my part in derailing this topic, and I hope that this has helped to put it back on course.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 02:29 AM
Here's a radical idea: Live and let live.

Who cares what other people believe?


If nobody had power over anybody else, sure, you'd be right. But the reality of the world we live in is that the president of the most powerful country in the world believes he speaks to a make believe being every night, and that that being speaks back to him and guides him through his daily life.



Just because I believe in a higher power doesn't make me any less of a person than you, and it doesn't affect you in the least (At least, negatively that is.).

No, it does make you less of a person. It makes you less intelligent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence


@OP: I did read the article. It had absolutely zero merit or substance to it. The author makes no good or even valid points and is clearly a total idiot.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 06:01 AM
If nobody had power over anybody else, sure, you'd be right. But the reality of the world we live in is that the president of the most powerful country in the world believes he speaks to a make believe being every night, and that that being speaks back to him and guides him through his daily life.



No, it does make you less of a person. It makes you less intelligent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence


@OP: I did read the article. It had absolutely zero merit or substance to it. The author makes no good or even valid points and is clearly a total idiot.

What ignorance; do you realize that we have yet to have an Atheist president? And yet, we have enjoyed some of the best leaders the world has ever seen; not all, by any means, but others such as Mohandas and Indira Ghandi, Winston Churchil, and Pope John Paul II were also greatly religious.

If you truly believe that there is no God, then who is Bush talking to? The answer is simple: himself. Obviously, nobody is claiming that they speak directly to God, because God reveals himself in General Revelation (Using worldly means to get his point across.). But this raises another point: if you believe there is no God, and yet the President and his advisers are talking to someone, you believe they are talking to themselves; wrestling with their consciences. Really, what would be the difference if they were all atheists? Depending on their personal morals; they would make the same choices. Just because you don't like those choices doesn't mean that you can blame all your woes on religion and start demanding that everyone accept your thought processes as their own. This is the United States, not a dictatorship led by a fat thirty-something with an anti-religious vendetta and the means to slobber all over himself as he taps out his bull**** on a website about video games.

And in all truth, there is absolutely NO solid proof to back your "Religiosity and Intelligence" theory, it was merely made up by self-righteous *******s like you who blindly hate religion and the people who practice it, no matter what good comes as a result.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 11:45 AM
What ignorance; do you realize that we have yet to have an Atheist president? And yet, we have enjoyed some of the best leaders the world has ever seen; not all, by any means, but others such as Mohandas and Indira Ghandi, Winston Churchil, and Pope John Paul II were also greatly religious.

Yes, I must be ignorant because I place my faith in a large sample set of statistically sound scientific studies, whereas you point to a handful of anecdotal examples that prove absolutely nothing.




If you truly believe that there is no God, then who is Bush talking to? The answer is simple: himself. Obviously, nobody is claiming that they speak directly to God, because God reveals himself in General Revelation (Using worldly means to get his point across.). But this raises another point: if you believe there is no God, and yet the President and his advisers are talking to someone, you believe they are talking to themselves; wrestling with their consciences. Really, what would be the difference if they were all atheists?

If you were looking for a new accountant, and he told you that he gets his advice from a lawn jockey on his front porch, would you hire him? I wouldn't.




Depending on their personal morals; they would make the same choices. Just because you don't like those choices doesn't mean that you can blame all your woes on religion and start demanding that everyone accept your thought processes as their own. This is the United States, not a dictatorship led by a fat thirty-something with an anti-religious vendetta and the means to slobber all over himself as he taps out his bull**** on a website about video games.

This idea that false beliefs should be tolerated is absurd. Preaching religious tolerance is like saying that teachers should be tolerant of kids who believe 2 + 2 = 5 and never correct them. Religious faith is wrong, as a matter of logical fact. It isn't an opinion, it is a truism, just as surely as "2 + 2 = 4".




And in all truth, there is absolutely NO solid proof to back your "Religiosity and Intelligence" theory, it was merely made up by self-righteous *******s like you who blindly hate religion and the people who practice it, no matter what good comes as a result.

Yes, it must have been. You didn't read the page, did you? If you had, you'd have seen this:



In 1986, an essay in the Council for Secular Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_Secular_Humanism)'s Free Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Inquiry) magazine summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#_note-2) In it Burnham Beckwith, the author of self-published and subsidy-published (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press) books on socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and futurism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_studies),[4] (http://www.amazon.ca/s?search-type=ss&index=books-ca&field-author=Burnham%20Beckwith) summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient), SAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT) scores, academic ability and other measures of "success", including employment as a scientist. He included studies of scientists in 1927 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927)'s Who's Who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Who), where researchers measured degrees of religiosity by looking at how "religious" their denomination was. Although conceding that it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect," he contended that the studies he examined, taken together, provided strong evidence for an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious faith in the United States.

You know, only a meta-analysis of 43 studies. No big deal or anything.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 11:53 AM
This idea that false beliefs should be tolerated is absurd. Preaching religious tolerance is like saying that teachers should be tolerant of kids who believe 2 + 2 = 5 and never correct them. Religious faith is wrong, as a matter of logical fact. It isn't an opinion, it is a truism, just as surely as "2 + 2 = 4".

I'm done arguing with someone who equates the unprovable with mathematic fact. You've just proved your own idiocy and intolerance by trying to dismiss that which cannot be proved or disproved. By your logic, any set of assumptions that are generally considered to be true by any small demographic of people should be considered canonical fact, just because you want it to be, and the inverse for things you disagree with. The fact is that everyone will always have different opinions about which, if any religion is correct, and you cant force others to believe the same as you.

Blind hatered doesn't make you smart, just an ******* who's only solace in life is his 'life' on the internet.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 01:18 PM
I'm done arguing with someone who equates the unprovable with mathematic fact. You've just proved your own idiocy and intolerance by trying to dismiss that which cannot be proved or disproved. By your logic, any set of assumptions that are generally considered to be true by any small demographic of people should be considered canonical fact, just because you want it to be, and the inverse for things you disagree with. The fact is that everyone will always have different opinions about which, if any religion is correct, and you cant force others to believe the same as you.

Blind hatered doesn't make you smart, just an ******* who's only solace in life is his 'life' on the internet.

I don't contend that God does not exist. I contend that it is stupid to believe God does exist, or to hold any firm belief about that which you, as you pointed out, cannot know. I can positively assert that 2 + 2 = 4, because it is provable. Therefore it is reasonable for me to make that assertion. I cannot ever prove that God exists, so even if he does, i'm stupid for believing it.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 01:28 PM
I cannot ever prove that God exists, so even if he does, i'm stupid for believing it.

Think what you want about my choice, or anyone else's choice to be 'stupid' on that one issue, but believing in a higher power has no bearing on your mental capacity.


a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 02:26 PM
Think what you want about my choice, or anyone else's choice to be 'stupid' on that one issue, but believing in a higher power has no bearing on your mental capacity.

How do you know that? Don't you think that the things someone chooses to believe in are highly indicative of their overall intelligence? I mean, I doubt you'd hesitate to gauge someone's intelligence based on the philosophical values they ascribe to, or their political positions - why is religious belief an exception? Why is it somehow different than any other belief?

Also, Einstein was an atheist.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 03:04 PM
Also, Einstein was an atheist.

Wrong.


The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism), and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Goldstein) "I believe in Spinoza's God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Overview_of_his_philosophy), who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (Brian 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#CITEREFBrian1996), p. 127)
Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#_note-32)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#_note-33)
By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person (Pais 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#CITEREFPais1982), p. 319).[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#_note-34) He published a paper in Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29) in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#_note-Nature146) In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha) and Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza) as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#CITEREFEinstein1940), pp. 605–607)


He certainly wasnt a Christian, but he believed in a god.

I've also pointed out the sentence that sums up this whole argument.

U4EA
07-14-2007, 03:17 PM
Wrong.



He certainly wasnt a Christian, but he believed in a god.

I've also pointed out the sentence that sums up this whole argument.

I find this humorous, He was Christian?. Einstein fled Germany during the World Wars which would most appropriately identify him as a man with Jewish decent hence his last name.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 03:26 PM
I find this humorous, He was Christian?. Einstein fled Germany during the World Wars which would most appropriately identify him as a man with Jewish decent hence his last name.

I said he wasn't a Christian, learn to read.

Also; being of Jewish decent does not mean you believe in Judaism

The quote even says that he identified himself as believing in "Spinoza's God" (If you don't know what he means by that, read up)

But back on topic, my last post i highlighted a phrase that pertains directly to Winkey's original post.

(kwarad, don't continue the argument; i understand your points, but neither of us is going to win this one, and we're derailing the topic. i don't think either of us want infractions.)

kwarad
07-14-2007, 08:07 PM
He certainly wasnt a Christian, but he believed in a god.

I've also pointed out the sentence that sums up this whole argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views



The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism), and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Goldstein) "I believe in Spinoza's God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Overview_of_his_philosophy), who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (Brian 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#CITEREFBrian1996), p. 127)

Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#_note-32)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#_note-33)

Deg™
07-14-2007, 08:10 PM
You cant just take that one point out to make yourself seem right when theres a whole other paragraph twice its size telling about what he DID believe. but anyway...


kwarad, don't continue the argument; i understand your points, but neither of us is going to win this one, and we're derailing the topic. i don't think either of us want infractions.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 08:13 PM
You may feel free to stop continuing the argument any time you wish, nobody is forcing you to respond to anything I say.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 08:17 PM
In which case, i believe i have said my piece on both issues raised.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 08:22 PM
You cant just take that one point out to make yourself seem right when theres a whole other paragraph twice its size telling about what he DID believe. but anyway...

I said he was an atheist. You disagreed. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a personal God. Einstein, in his own words, said "I do not believe in a personal God". I'm not sure it can possibly be any more clear than that.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 08:52 PM
I said he was an atheist. You disagreed. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a personal God. Einstein, in his own words, said "I do not believe in a personal God". I'm not sure it can possibly be any more clear than that.

Although i truly want this to be over, seeing as i am tired of beating a dead horse...

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any god whatsoever. Buddhists and Hindus believe in a deity as a spiritual force, but you wouldn't call them atheists.

kwarad
07-14-2007, 09:00 PM
Although i truly want this to be over, seeing as i am tired of beating a dead horse...

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any god whatsoever. Buddhists and Hindus believe in a deity as a spiritual force, but you wouldn't call them atheists.

Einstein did not believe in anything metaphysical. Someone who believes in Spinoza's God, as Einstein did, is generally considered an atheist. Spinoza's position essentially that the universe IS God, that the term 'God' is just another way of referring to the universe as a whole or any constituent particle of our universe. A belief in Spinoza's concept of God is absolutely nothing like any normal notion of 'religious' belief, and certainly nothing that would contradict the beliefs of an atheist.

Deg™
07-14-2007, 09:07 PM
Einstein did not believe in anything metaphysical. Someone who believes in Spinoza's God, as Einstein did, is generally considered an atheist. Spinoza's position essentially that the universe IS God, that the term 'God' is just another way of referring to the universe as a whole or any constituent particle of our universe. A belief in Spinoza's concept of God is absolutely nothing like any normal notion of 'religious' belief, and certainly nothing that would contradict the beliefs of an atheist.

Whatever, we'll never agree dude. I'm done, find someone else to argue with.

As my final point, and what i was driving at in the beginning is that your assumption that you are smarter than someone who believes in a God is childish at best. Such a theory can NEVER be proved, and will always be tainted with bias.

kwarad
07-15-2007, 01:15 PM
Whatever, we'll never agree dude. I'm done, find someone else to argue with.

Einstein was an atheist - there is nothing to debate, it's a fact.



As my final point, and what i was driving at in the beginning is that your assumption that you are smarter than someone who believes in a God is childish at best. Such a theory can NEVER be proved, and will always be tainted with bias.

Statistically, its true. The most religious countries in the world are the least developed, education and religiosity correlate inversely, if you read off the list of nobel prize winners you will find almost none of them believe in God. Etc.