Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
You make way too many assumptions considering I never "referred" to religion as a blind institution, etc. All I am saying is it is based on faith, whereas science is not. THAT IS NOT REFUTABLE. Most official church positions realize and accept it too.

Curiosity is not the same as faith.

Science is not about faith. Scientifically, he may very well know it might not work and there are experiments where scientists almost certainly know they won't work but do them just to see what happens.

In some regards that is exactly what it is . Faith in that situation is believing that there is a door in front of you. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly the two aren't the same.

Bottom line, I can coexist with non theists, because I know science dosent have all the answers. It is secularism that can not bend, they have to have all the answers because that is what their religion is based on

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
It is secularism that can not bend, they have to have all the answers because that is what their religion is based on

That simply isn't true and it makes me think you are being hypocritical when you say you can coexist with people who believe in science when you won't even take the time to understand science or when it comes to individuals their actual positions. Science and anti-religion do not go hand-in-hand. And you still completely just ignored the rest of the issues- particularly that curiousity and faith is different. I am not sure why you are taking such a strong and weird position when even the official religions do not take those positions.

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
You make way too many assumptions considering I never "referred" to religion as a blind institution, etc. All I am saying is it is based on faith, whereas science is not. THAT IS NOT REFUTABLE. Most official church positions realize and accept it too.

Curiosity is not the same as faith.

Science is not about faith. Scientifically, he may very well know it might not work and there are experiments where scientists almost certainly know they won't work but do them just to see what happens.

In some regards that is exactly what it is . Faith in that situation is believing that there is a door in front of you. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly the two aren't the same.

myp said:
That simply isn't true and it makes me think you are being hypocritical when you say you can coexist with people who believe in science when you won't even take the time to understand science or when it comes to individuals their actual positions. Science and anti-religion do not go hand-in-hand. And you still completely just ignored the rest of the issues- particularly that curiousity and faith is different. I am not sure why you are taking such a strong and weird position when even the official religions do not take those positions.

Science states that for example that there is an equation that answers all things, it is called grand unifide theory. And lots of energy gose into this theory. So my answer until they come up with one is God is the grand unifier, until there is understanding of all of causality there is no better answer. Evolutionary theory, exists only if coelessance is ture.
Like I said I question everything, I say theories based on so little understanding of the beginnings of the universe are not theories but being that they are supportied on the notion that the conclusion drawn from this discovery is accurate, theories are faith.

We know what is proven. If you can prove it then it can be known, all statements are contradicted, so nothing is provable universally, sence proof can onle exist universally, there is no proof of anything.

When science stepps into unethical practices, I queston its value.

myp · Jan 11, 2012

I will say it again that I find it tremendously ironic that you are having this debate on the Internet, with a computer, using so much modern tech that is the result of SCIENTIFIC research and yet you flatout just have a problem with science. I am not the one that has a problem with religion, you are the one that seems to have a problem with science.

It is okay to question things- that is a big PART of science, but certain things are clearly statistically more likely to be true than others because of some sort of evidence or proof. On a side note, if you question everything, do you also question faith and God?

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
I will say it again that I find it tremendously ironic that you are having this debate on the Internet, with a computer, using so much modern tech that is the result of SCIENTIFIC research and yet you flatout just have a problem with science. I am not the one that has a problem with religion, you are the one that seems to have a problem with science.

when did I say I had a problem with science. I just said it dosent have all of the answers, but that can't be, in your belief structure, you exist in an all or nothing reality. How do you translate questioning of questionable ethics, to absolute rejection of all science.

Stop putting words in my mouth

myp said:
It is okay to question things- that is a big PART of science, but certain things are clearly statistically more likely to be true than others because of some sort of evidence or proof. On a side note, if you question everything, do you also question faith and God?

But things happen against the odds. Statisics are based on the asumption that the odds stacked against you, you will loose, I can cite exaples where statistics where against something but it happened anyway. Therefor if you regard a smaller margine as unimportant you are a fool

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
when did I say I had a problem with science. I just said it dosent have all of the answers, but that can't be, in your belief structure, you exist in an all or nothing reality. How do you translate questioning of questionable ethics, to absolute rejection of all science.
Stop putting words in my mouth

Ironic that you request that considering that is all you do with my position. Anyway, I am saying you have a problem with science because you haven't even taken the time to understand what it is yet. I am not saying you said it.

clax said:
But things happen against the odds. Statisics are based on the asumption that the odds stacked against you, you will loose, I can cite exaples where statistics where against something but it happened anyway. Therefor if you regard a smaller margine as unimportant you are a fool

Yes other things can happen HENCE PROBABILITIES. But probabilities can favor one STRONGLY. Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If you question everything, do you question your faith?

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
Ironic that you request that considering that is all you do with my position. Anyway, I am saying you have a problem with science because you haven't even taken the time to understand what it is yet. I am not saying you said it.

You haven't taken the time to understand faith. I absolutly have taken the time to understand science. And how can you make such a claim, you have no idea of any background I have in science, you assume that you have a vast knowledge of science. I say you haven't taken the time to understand it. If I didn't take the time to understand your version of science. I submit you are being ironc. Science based on what I study supports a possability of the existance of God

myp said:
Yes other things can happen HENCE PROBABILITIES. But probabilities can favor one STRONGLY. Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If you question everything, do you question your faith?

I have questioned my faith I do question it, only fools don't.

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
You haven't taken the time to understand faith. I absolutly have taken the time to understand science. And how can you make such a claim, you have no idea of any background I have in science, you assume that you have a vast knowledge of science. I say you haven't taken the time to understand it. If I didn't take the time to understand your version of science. I submit you are being ironc. Science based on what I study supports a possability of the existance of God

I have no problem with faith and I understand what it is- exactly that- faith. You seem to think faith and science are equals in reason which is false. And that is not to put down the faithful or the god-fearing- it is just how it is.

clax said:
I have questioned my faith I do question it, only fools don't.

I'm glad.

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
I have no problem with faith and I understand what it is- exactly that- faith. You seem to think faith and science are equals in reason which is false. And that is not to put down the faithful or the god-fearing- it is just how it is.

I absolutly agree, faith is what you have in things that are unprovable or have yet to be proven, universally. Science is the act to try and explain or discover something which is not yet provable.

Basically put I have faith in science.

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
I absolutly agree, faith is what you have in things that are unprovable or have yet to be proven, universally. Science is the act to try and explain or discover something which is not yet provable.

Basically put I have faith in science.

So I guess you admit you were wrong when you said science is faith: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=24529&postcount=10

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
So I guess you admit you were wrong when you said science is faith: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=24529&postcount=10

Yes I was, you need faith in science, but I was mistaken when I said science and faith are the same.

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
Yes I was, you need faith in science, but I was mistaken when I said science and faith are the same.

At least we are getting somewhere, but you still don't need faith in science

How do you explain all the scientists who do not have faith- those who just do their research to see what happens? Or those that accidentally discover things while not actually looking for them?

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
At least we are getting somewhere, but you still don't need faith in science

Sure you do, you can't discover grand unification without first believing that it is possable. Somewhere sometime someone thought that there is a way to use our perception to unify existance in a statement or equation. Otherwise grand unification theory, in general all theoretical study wouldn't exist.

Theories come from people who think they can solve a question

myp said:
How do you explain all the scientists who do not have faith- those who just do their research to see what happens? Or those that accidentally discover things while not actually looking for them?

faith moved them to do the reserch in the first place. Why would people reaserch things if they didn't. First think that reaserch could possably lead them to discovery. Or do you suggest that people reaserch do that reaserch to not find a way to prove something?

Reaserch is for reserches sake? That makes no sence. Why do something if it is for nothing.

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
faith moved them to do the reserch in the first place.
Why would people reaserch things if they didn't.

Lots of reasons. Curiosity. Money (if it is their job). Boredom. Looking for fame.

clax said:
Reaserch is for reserches sake? That makes no sence. Why do something if it is for nothing.

Have you ever considered that some people just like doing it?

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
Lots of reasons. Curiosity. Money (if it is their job). Boredom. Looking for fame.

I disagree

myp said:
Have you ever considered that some people just like doing it?

Why?

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
Lots of reasons. Curiosity. Money (if it is their job). Boredom. Looking for fame.

Curiosity, I agree. Money because its their job? That is not true, people choose their line of work for a reason, you don't do reserch because it pays, you do it because you want to. When I was a mechanic I made more than the three reserchers I know.

Boredom, really, that's absurd. No serious discovery was made out of bordom. Except for maybe the discovory of an orgasum

myp · Jan 12, 2012

clax said:
Money because its their job? That is not true, people choose their line of work for a reason, you don't do reserch because it pays, you do it because you want to.

You think all people are happy with their jobs? A LOT of people work for the money

- even in research someone might have started off thinking they liked it, but didn't realize until they felt it was too late to turn back that they didn't.

clax said:
Boredom, really, that's absurd. No serious discovery was made out of bordom. Except for maybe the discovory of an orgasum

You really like blanket statements and I bet that there are tons of things that were found out of boredom (just messing around with things).

clax · Jan 16, 2012

myp said:
You think all people are happy with their jobs? A LOT of people work for the money - even in research someone might have started off thinking they liked it, but didn't realize until they felt it was too late to turn back that they didn't.

You really like blanket statements and I bet that there are tons of things that were found out of boredom (just messing around with things).

I guess that is possable.

kowalskil · Jan 16, 2012

RoccoR said:
... Science and faith are not on the same plane of observation. Science cannot explain or disprove a faith-based assertions. ...

Yes indeed, and vice versa, according to NOMA (non-overlapping Magisteria).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

RoccoR · Jan 16, 2012

kowalskil, et al,

Sometimes I don't understand the origins and perpetuation of this debate; yet I see it everywhere. I find the NOMA Doctrine quite interesting.

kowalskil said:
Yes indeed, and vice versa, according to NOMA (non-overlapping Magisteria).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

(COMMENT)

I do not often see scientist challenging theology, except in terms of hard dates. Yet I see the religious challenging science and worried about the outcomes of scientific exploration continually.

One has very little to do with the other. You would think, in terms of scientific endeavors, that those with religious affiliations would understand this more, as many of the first scientists were deeply religious or philosophers.

(OFF TOPIC)

Great "avatar!" Handsome family.

Most Respectfully,
R

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

Similar threads